Say we accept one of the following principles as valid:
1. A creator designed the universe in a way conducive to the emergence of life and/or intelligence
2. There is an underlying principle in physics/cosmology that limits the universe's properties to only those conducive to life and/or mind.
3. The existence of the universe requires an observer, and therefore only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist.
These three arguments have in common one thing; they all presume a unique place for life in the universe. Other than that unifying idea, the three theories are fairly dissimilar.
However, I believe that it is not necessary to know for certain which of the three is true. The fact that they all agree life is unique is enough information for me to go on building my philosophical foundation.
If life holds such a central, unique place in our universe, it follows that life likely has some purpose. Whether this purpose is to follow or seek knowledge about a creator, or to sustain the existence of the universe through observation, or something else entirely, at this point it only matters that our existence does indeed have some meaning.
Once we accept that life has a purpose, I think we must also accept that we don't know what that purpose is. Here many people will disagree with me, but I simply have not seen any substantive evidence in any one direction. There is enough information, however, to draw two other conclusions:
1. Since we don't know what life's purpose is, we cannot be sure if it has already been fulfilled. I therefore think that we must work, as the most advanced life we know of, to ensure life's survival until that point that we discover our purpose has been fulfilled. Alternativeley, if our purpose turns out to require our continued existence, I believe we must attempt to prolong life until the end of the universe.
2. Since we cannot know if life has fulfilled its purpose (and cannot work to fulfill it if it remains unfulfilled) unless we know what it is, I believe that it is logical to adopt an "interim purpose" of searching for the overarching meaning of our existence. Since that meaning almost certainly has to do with either ourselves, the universe or a hypothetical creator of the universe, I would go so far as to adopt a more specific "interim purpose":
*Humanity, as the most complex life known, should strive to find the meaning of life's existence through the exploration, observation, analysis and experience of as much of the universe, and the life that exists within it, as possible*
So, if we accept a model of the universe that suggests an overarching meaning of life, I believe we must also accept that our two greatest goals should be the survival and propagation of life, and the acquisition of knowledge about the nature of life and the universe.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The White Tree (2 of 5)
If I am to construct a personal philosophy, I see no alternative but to start at the very beginning. Like Descartes, I am confident of my own existence. I am also confident that I appear to observe a coherent external universe. Starting from only those convictions, and the conviction that reason can create a true picture of existence, I see three possibilities.
1. The physical universe exists, roughly as I observe it.
2. Some external entity is deceiving me into believing the universe exists.
3. I am somehow unconsciously deceiving myself into believing the universe exists.
In either of the latter cases, I arrive at an impasse. I have no knowledge, and no capacity to obtain knowledge about either the deceiving entity or the mechanism of self-deception. If either of those options is the truth, it would be impossible to make rational decisions, because I have no information. I would have to either guess (randomly) something about the nature of the deception and act based on that, or assume nothing and act randomly.
However, if the first option is correct, I do have information on which to make decisions. Given a choice between acting randomly and acting on the basis on information which is possibly (but not necessarily) correct, I believe I have no alternative but to choose the lesser evil and accept the existence of the physical universe as I observe it.
Given the existence of the universe, one can begin to draw conclusions based on the available evidence. Some of the philosophically relevant conclusions I draw include the following:
1. The universe operates based on a set of unchanging rules. (like gravity)
2. The universe appears to be of finite age and size; it had a beginning, is expanding and will have an end.
3. The universe is such that it permits the formation of stars and planets, and hence life. It seems that this state depends on a relatively small range of values for physical constants.
The next logical question to ask is why these things are the case. Why does our universe have the rules it has? Why do the conditions we observe seem to be almost exactly right for life? In my research, I uncovered a list of possibilities that I feel is complete:
1. The Absurd Universe - Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2. The Unique Universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The Multiverse - Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4. Creationism - A creator designed the universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5. The Life Principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The Self-Explaining Universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist."
7. The Fake Universe - We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
I reject the first option on the grounds that is infinitely improbable. I also reject the seventh on the grounds that it does not explain anything; presumably if we exist in a virtual reality world, whoever or whatever created that world exists in some kind of universe of its own, which would require an explanation. The only way this could be possible is if the programmer is some kind of being whose existence is not caused or self-caused, in which case #7 becomes #4. This leaves options 2-6.
Work done by Stephen Hawking and others suggests that it is highly unlikely that our universe is part of an infinite consecutive chain of universes that have existed forever; among other things this would require our universe to end by collapsing down into a "Big Crunch", which has been shown to be a dubious theory. This means that if #3 is correct, the multiple universes must be concurrent, and must have all began at the same time. #3 also implies that the number of parallel universes must be exceedingly large if not infinite. Further, it implies that the multiverse have universes with many different variations of physical constants, unlike, say, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which (in most interpretations) postulates a large/infinite number of concurrent universes sharing the same physical properties.
So, now I arrive at a point of divergence. The specific version of hypothesis #3, as above, and hypothesis #2, suggest (on their own) a non-anthropocentric universe. In those views, life (and consciousness) is merely an accident of physics, much like many of the other strange phenomena observed in our universe. In stronger interpretations of this view, like those held by Trent and Taylor, consciousness makes no difference to human function, and is merely akin to "a computer observing another computer and analysing its actions". The stronger interpretations also hold that this kind of universe does not leave a place for any idea of God, and therefore strongly suggests God does not exist.
On the other hand, hypotheses 4-6 suggest that life, and by extension consciousness, hold a unique place in the universe. I believe that any of these interpretations also imply a purpose for consciousness, even if it is only to survive and observe the universe. These intrepretations also leave a place for God, as presumably a conscious creator provides one of the few answers as to why our universe might have a special place for life.
I tend to lean more towards the second set of theories for two reasons. First, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the argument from causation, that is, that everything that occurs has some cause, some answer to "Why/How did this occur". This is the basis for reason, and something I cannot reject. I believe causation to be the case for our universe and everything in it, as even random and probabalistic actions are subject to some degree of causation. However, if the universe has not existed forever (as we have previously discussed) then there must have been a "first cause", which was either uncaused or self caused. I believe this makes a "creator" of some kind more probable.
Secondly, in my opinion, the evidence suggests that life may have some unique place in the universe. I believe life displays properties that are distinct and far different than anything else in the universe (such as a tendency toward complexity), consciousness (which I don't think is just an illusion), and an ability to define new properties of the universe, like meaning, beauty or appreciation.
Still, I must concede I do not have sufficient evidence that either set of theories is correct or even very likely. I believe my analysis and observation is only sufficient to conclude that the second set is more probable. Therefore, I cannot base further beliefs on one strand or the other, but I must explore both in isolation. I believe they will lead to the same result in the end, but we will see in the next two posts.
1. The physical universe exists, roughly as I observe it.
2. Some external entity is deceiving me into believing the universe exists.
3. I am somehow unconsciously deceiving myself into believing the universe exists.
In either of the latter cases, I arrive at an impasse. I have no knowledge, and no capacity to obtain knowledge about either the deceiving entity or the mechanism of self-deception. If either of those options is the truth, it would be impossible to make rational decisions, because I have no information. I would have to either guess (randomly) something about the nature of the deception and act based on that, or assume nothing and act randomly.
However, if the first option is correct, I do have information on which to make decisions. Given a choice between acting randomly and acting on the basis on information which is possibly (but not necessarily) correct, I believe I have no alternative but to choose the lesser evil and accept the existence of the physical universe as I observe it.
Given the existence of the universe, one can begin to draw conclusions based on the available evidence. Some of the philosophically relevant conclusions I draw include the following:
1. The universe operates based on a set of unchanging rules. (like gravity)
2. The universe appears to be of finite age and size; it had a beginning, is expanding and will have an end.
3. The universe is such that it permits the formation of stars and planets, and hence life. It seems that this state depends on a relatively small range of values for physical constants.
The next logical question to ask is why these things are the case. Why does our universe have the rules it has? Why do the conditions we observe seem to be almost exactly right for life? In my research, I uncovered a list of possibilities that I feel is complete:
1. The Absurd Universe - Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2. The Unique Universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The Multiverse - Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4. Creationism - A creator designed the universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5. The Life Principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The Self-Explaining Universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist."
7. The Fake Universe - We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
I reject the first option on the grounds that is infinitely improbable. I also reject the seventh on the grounds that it does not explain anything; presumably if we exist in a virtual reality world, whoever or whatever created that world exists in some kind of universe of its own, which would require an explanation. The only way this could be possible is if the programmer is some kind of being whose existence is not caused or self-caused, in which case #7 becomes #4. This leaves options 2-6.
Work done by Stephen Hawking and others suggests that it is highly unlikely that our universe is part of an infinite consecutive chain of universes that have existed forever; among other things this would require our universe to end by collapsing down into a "Big Crunch", which has been shown to be a dubious theory. This means that if #3 is correct, the multiple universes must be concurrent, and must have all began at the same time. #3 also implies that the number of parallel universes must be exceedingly large if not infinite. Further, it implies that the multiverse have universes with many different variations of physical constants, unlike, say, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which (in most interpretations) postulates a large/infinite number of concurrent universes sharing the same physical properties.
So, now I arrive at a point of divergence. The specific version of hypothesis #3, as above, and hypothesis #2, suggest (on their own) a non-anthropocentric universe. In those views, life (and consciousness) is merely an accident of physics, much like many of the other strange phenomena observed in our universe. In stronger interpretations of this view, like those held by Trent and Taylor, consciousness makes no difference to human function, and is merely akin to "a computer observing another computer and analysing its actions". The stronger interpretations also hold that this kind of universe does not leave a place for any idea of God, and therefore strongly suggests God does not exist.
On the other hand, hypotheses 4-6 suggest that life, and by extension consciousness, hold a unique place in the universe. I believe that any of these interpretations also imply a purpose for consciousness, even if it is only to survive and observe the universe. These intrepretations also leave a place for God, as presumably a conscious creator provides one of the few answers as to why our universe might have a special place for life.
I tend to lean more towards the second set of theories for two reasons. First, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the argument from causation, that is, that everything that occurs has some cause, some answer to "Why/How did this occur". This is the basis for reason, and something I cannot reject. I believe causation to be the case for our universe and everything in it, as even random and probabalistic actions are subject to some degree of causation. However, if the universe has not existed forever (as we have previously discussed) then there must have been a "first cause", which was either uncaused or self caused. I believe this makes a "creator" of some kind more probable.
Secondly, in my opinion, the evidence suggests that life may have some unique place in the universe. I believe life displays properties that are distinct and far different than anything else in the universe (such as a tendency toward complexity), consciousness (which I don't think is just an illusion), and an ability to define new properties of the universe, like meaning, beauty or appreciation.
Still, I must concede I do not have sufficient evidence that either set of theories is correct or even very likely. I believe my analysis and observation is only sufficient to conclude that the second set is more probable. Therefore, I cannot base further beliefs on one strand or the other, but I must explore both in isolation. I believe they will lead to the same result in the end, but we will see in the next two posts.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Problem is Choice (1 of 5)
Having written mostly in this blog about "proximate" issues and my opinions on them, I find myself compelled now to address "ultimate" issues and my beliefs in relation to them. I am essentially talking about philosophy, and I imagine I will find this topic quite difficult, as I have no formal training in the discipline aside from one undergraduate course.
Despite the difficulty I may have on this topic, I feel that exploring it is necessary. Taylor brought this necessity to my attention by noting the fundamental basis of all practical beliefs must spring from a philosophical underpinning if one wishes to be consistent, as I do. He pointed out, for example, that my entire economic worldview is based on the premise that people have some choice in the outcome of their lives. If merit is not a matter of choice, but rather something determined solely by genetics and environment, then it is nonsensical that one person is more deserving of anything than another.
Further, if a person's decisions are not truly free, it seems to follow that no one can have moral responsibility for anything. If a person's choice to commit a crime is not actually a choice, but a certainty based on genetics and environment (external factors), the whole notion of responsibility seems absurd.
I must clarify that when I speak of choice, or free will, in this post, I am not referring to the compatibilist definition of free will (one has free will whenever another person is not forcing him to undertake a certain action). I am speaking of truly free will, by which I mean that one can make a decision that is not entirely based on causes outside his control.
Unfortunately, as Taylor pointed out, the scant evidence that exists from psychology and neuroscience suggests that truly free decisions are an illusion, and all decisions are a product of genetics and external stimuli. Current physics suggests that even if the universe is not deterministic but probabilistic, (as quantum theory suggests) quantum mechanics does not necessarily provide a mechanism for free will. This is for two reasons:
1. Quantum effects are unlikely to affect events at the scale of neurons and cells, they generally only deviate from classical physics at the atomic level.
2. Even if, though quantum entanglement or some other process, brain function is random or probabilistic as opposed to deterministic, this does not automatically provide for free will. Consider a hypothetical choice, where someone must choose between Choice A and Choice B. Suppose that we had the ability to rewind time, so that the exact same decision would be made in the same circumstances by the same person 10 times. Consider the outcomes under four different assumptions about choice:
I. In a deterministic universe, the choice is determined by the person's genetics and environment. The person will make the same choice all 10 times. Given full knowledge of the universe, the outcome of this choice could be predicted from the beginning of time.
II. In a probabilistic universe, the outcome of the decision could be predicted based on conditions in a probabalistic way. Given full knowledge of the universe, one could say that there was an 80% chance of choice A and 20% chance of choice B (for example). However, the quantum effects are not beholden (as far as we know) to any external cause.
Given a choice between moving one hand or the other, we would expect the quantum probability to be roughly even (or say 60-40 in favour of the dominant hand). However, there is no physics that I've read about that suggests the quantum probabilities couldn't be .99-.01, even though this would seem absurd. I guess what I am saying here is that from what I understand, quantum-based decision-making is difficult to reconcile with rationality. However, I am not a physicist or a philosopher, and must leave open to consideration a model whereby true free will is created by a model of the universe that is deterministic at large scales and probabalistic at small scales (like ours), and where the cerebral decision-making apparatus is affected by both causes and quantum probabilities (or quantum probabilities are affected by causes).
III. A random universe is essentially a probabalistic universe where all choices are equally probable. This seems even more difficult to reconcile with observed rationality.
IV. A universe that is not a closed system would allow for free will. If sentient beings have a "soul" or some non-physical aspect that can influence physical reality, then there would be a source for "self-caused" effects to determine decisions. This solution, however, seems to conflict with lack of evidence for non-corporeal existence. It cannot, however, be entirely ruled out. It just seems less likely than the other solutions.
Free will is of course only one of many of the philosophical positions I will need to construct if I am to be sure that my practical beliefs have a solid an consistient underpinning. I will leave this post here, and in the next one I will start building from the ground up.
Despite the difficulty I may have on this topic, I feel that exploring it is necessary. Taylor brought this necessity to my attention by noting the fundamental basis of all practical beliefs must spring from a philosophical underpinning if one wishes to be consistent, as I do. He pointed out, for example, that my entire economic worldview is based on the premise that people have some choice in the outcome of their lives. If merit is not a matter of choice, but rather something determined solely by genetics and environment, then it is nonsensical that one person is more deserving of anything than another.
Further, if a person's decisions are not truly free, it seems to follow that no one can have moral responsibility for anything. If a person's choice to commit a crime is not actually a choice, but a certainty based on genetics and environment (external factors), the whole notion of responsibility seems absurd.
I must clarify that when I speak of choice, or free will, in this post, I am not referring to the compatibilist definition of free will (one has free will whenever another person is not forcing him to undertake a certain action). I am speaking of truly free will, by which I mean that one can make a decision that is not entirely based on causes outside his control.
Unfortunately, as Taylor pointed out, the scant evidence that exists from psychology and neuroscience suggests that truly free decisions are an illusion, and all decisions are a product of genetics and external stimuli. Current physics suggests that even if the universe is not deterministic but probabilistic, (as quantum theory suggests) quantum mechanics does not necessarily provide a mechanism for free will. This is for two reasons:
1. Quantum effects are unlikely to affect events at the scale of neurons and cells, they generally only deviate from classical physics at the atomic level.
2. Even if, though quantum entanglement or some other process, brain function is random or probabilistic as opposed to deterministic, this does not automatically provide for free will. Consider a hypothetical choice, where someone must choose between Choice A and Choice B. Suppose that we had the ability to rewind time, so that the exact same decision would be made in the same circumstances by the same person 10 times. Consider the outcomes under four different assumptions about choice:
I. In a deterministic universe, the choice is determined by the person's genetics and environment. The person will make the same choice all 10 times. Given full knowledge of the universe, the outcome of this choice could be predicted from the beginning of time.
II. In a probabilistic universe, the outcome of the decision could be predicted based on conditions in a probabalistic way. Given full knowledge of the universe, one could say that there was an 80% chance of choice A and 20% chance of choice B (for example). However, the quantum effects are not beholden (as far as we know) to any external cause.
Given a choice between moving one hand or the other, we would expect the quantum probability to be roughly even (or say 60-40 in favour of the dominant hand). However, there is no physics that I've read about that suggests the quantum probabilities couldn't be .99-.01, even though this would seem absurd. I guess what I am saying here is that from what I understand, quantum-based decision-making is difficult to reconcile with rationality. However, I am not a physicist or a philosopher, and must leave open to consideration a model whereby true free will is created by a model of the universe that is deterministic at large scales and probabalistic at small scales (like ours), and where the cerebral decision-making apparatus is affected by both causes and quantum probabilities (or quantum probabilities are affected by causes).
III. A random universe is essentially a probabalistic universe where all choices are equally probable. This seems even more difficult to reconcile with observed rationality.
IV. A universe that is not a closed system would allow for free will. If sentient beings have a "soul" or some non-physical aspect that can influence physical reality, then there would be a source for "self-caused" effects to determine decisions. This solution, however, seems to conflict with lack of evidence for non-corporeal existence. It cannot, however, be entirely ruled out. It just seems less likely than the other solutions.
Free will is of course only one of many of the philosophical positions I will need to construct if I am to be sure that my practical beliefs have a solid an consistient underpinning. I will leave this post here, and in the next one I will start building from the ground up.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Elementary Electoral Education
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.
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.
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!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Crimes of the Islanders (5 of 6)
There could not be two islands more different than Greenland and Easter. Greenland is the world's largest island, relatively accessible from both North America and Europe. It is a cold, icy place, inhospitable to most life and mostly untouched by civilization. The first European colonists, Icelandic Vikings, had to battle to survive, especially as the climate cooled and contact was eventually lost with Iceland.
Easter, on the other hand, is one of the most isolated pieces of land in the world. It was empty until well after year 0, and might have even been uninhabited until the middle ages. However, the island was blessed with a verdant ecosystem, and the first settlers probably thought they had stumbled into a paradise. Unlike in Greenland, the island's resources allowed a dynamic civilization to quickly spring into being. The islanders erected massive statues across the island, and developed a complex society.
Despite their clear differences, both Greenland and Easter suffered the same fate. Both civilizations were decimated by poor resource management. By the time new waves of explorers arrived on the two islands, the non-Inuit Greenlanders were completely extinct and the society of Easter had degenerated into poorly nourished and warring factions, with many of the massive statues toppled to the ground.
The reason for these collapses was that the islanders did not have the ability to maintain sustainable resource usage. In Greenland, the lack of natural forests and the marginal agricultural yields could not support a European agricultural civilization once the climate began to cool. Even as their situation became more dire, with falling crop yields and the cessation of wood imports, the Greenlanders held on to their way of life.
Only once it was too late did the Greenlanders attempt to adapt to their situation. They began to rely more on the sea for their food, but with no way to repair or replace their aging wooden ships, they could not feed everyone. They never learned to build boats out of animal material, as the Inuit did, and they never abandoned their farms. Because they were unable to adapt, they vanished.
On Easter, something slightly different happened. The island was so plentiful when the colonists arrived that there was no thought of resource conservation. Trees were felled en masse to provide wood for various uses, including the rollers probably used to build the moai. The birds and sea life on the island were hunted to provide food for an exploding population.
By the mid-second millennium AD, the resources of Easter were beginning to run dry. The forests that had once covered the island were gone, and the birds and marine life were harder and harder to find. At this stage, however, Easter was still an absolute monarchy. It is possible that a prescient ruler could have implemented resource management policies, as happened in Hawaii and other places.
Unfortunately, perhaps in response to the island's problems, the monarch was deposed and a new system was put in place whereby the first islander to capture the egg of a particular bird each year became the custodian of the island's resources. Thus, frequent leadership changes and inexperienced administration prevented the establishment of any coherent policy, and the complex society of Easter slowly faded away.
The modern world can learn much from these two stories, seeing as how we are essentially an island within a vast universe. The Earth is not as harsh (on average) as Greenland nor is it changing at as rapid a pace. Likewise, the resources of the Earth are not depleted to the extent that Easter's were. Despite this, the fact remains that many of our resources are being depleted rapidly, and those resources are at least as integral to our society as timber and food resources were to Greenland and Easter.
There are two key lessons that come from these histories that can be a helpful framework for policy development. The first is perhaps self evident, but our islanders certainly did not grasp it. It is the simple truth that prudent (and global) resource management is necessary to avoid catastrophe. Despite the fact that we are a fragmented world, with no strong leadership on resource management, we must not let that be our downfall, as it was for Easter's people.
The second lesson is that we must not be afraid to change, as the Greenlanders were. Our current model is not sufficient, and we should be aware of this. It is painfully obvious that we are using up the Earth's resources at an alarming rate. I liken this to a corporate balance sheet. The resources regenerated/discovered each year can be though of as revenues and the consumption as expenses. Any expenses in excess of revenues must be covered through debt, essentially a reduction of net assets.
If one accepts that we are currently using up the net assets of the Earth, and one also accepts that active management is necessary (i.e. the problem will not fix itself), there are essentially three ways to deal with the problem. Continuing with my balance sheet analogy, you can either increase revenues, decrease expenses, or decrease the average expense per unit of revenue. Let's look at these three options in detail:
1. Increasing Revenues - Whether or not this approach is even possible depends on the resource you are looking at. For resources like metals and land, this approach has no relevance, because those resources are generally non-substitutable and finite.
For a second set of resources, including energy resources, limited increases to revenue might be possible through technology, but the biggest gains can come from a change in "revenue mix". Think of this as being akin to Apple realizing in the late 1990's that its revenue stream from computers was essentially maximized. They shifted their strategy to obtain revenue from other, related, products (like music players and phones). This same shift can be accomplished by transferring energy usage to underutilized resources like solar and wind.
Finally, there are a third set of resources where revenues can be increased with prudent management and technology development. Some underutilized energy resources (like uranium and deuterium) and many renewable resources (like timber and food) fall into this category.
2. Improving Efficiency (expense per unit of revenue) - This is the most self explanatory of the three areas. Efforts to improve the efficiency of resources are concentrated in two areas. The first area is technological improvements, such as more efficient power plants or vehicles. The second area is improved recycling, which is especially important for resources like metals.
3. Decreasing Expenses - This is the category where the biggest potential for change exists, but it is also the one that is the most politically difficult. Reductions in "expenses" can only be achieved in one of two ways, by decreasing per-capita consumption or by decreases in population. Neither of these will be easy sells, and any policy of population control could turn out horribly wrong. Still, it is likely that part of any solution to our consumption problem will have to be found in this category.
I know that this post is less specific than others in terms of the actual externalities that need to be addressed, but I feel that the problems have been sufficiently illustrated. I will therefore jump right to some potential policy solutions.
1. Implementation of my previous proposals will help to correct our resource imbalance, especially for land and energy resources. It will also advance the development of new resource technologies.
2. Technology must be seen as an important part of environmental solutions. I will discuss this more in my next post.
3. A long-term tax policy shift away from income tax and toward consumption taxes, as I have previously advocated, would be an excellent place to start on the "expenses" side of things.
4. Supporting the sustainable development and urbanization of poor countries is one of the best ways to decrease our population growth rate. All the evidence suggests that the richer and more urbanized a country is, the lower its growth rate. This is because children are no longer an economic benefit, like they are in subsistience-agriculture based societies.
5. Making sure appropriate contraceptive methods, and information on their use, are available in developing countries for free will not only slow the spread of AIDS, but will also help contain population growth and the consequent consumption increases.
6. It is important that current recycling programs be maintained, and new ways of recycling (like making biofuel from garbage) are explored.
7. These proposals will not be enough. It is likely, that even with new technologies, that the Earth will only be able to sustainably support a few billion people at current North American levels of consumption. Since our population will likely be higher than that well into the future, and since we hope to bring many more people up to an acceptable standard of living, it is probable that those of us in the rich world will have to make some sacrifices.
I am just as unwilling as the next person to give up many of the material pleasures I have gained at the expense of the earth. For example, I will never be a vegetarian, even if it is better for the planet. Nor will I stop travelling. However, I do believe that everyone does use things they don't really need, or even want. I believe that if appropriate public policy is implemented and people start to change their mindset on consumption, that a long-term, sustainable Earth can be built, with around 7-8 billion people living on our planet with similar quality of life to what Canadians enjoy today.
Food for thought:
How much energy would be saved if all buildings were only heated to 15 degrees in the winter and cooled to 25 degrees in the summer (subject to the relaxation of corporate dress codes)? Wouldn't the inconvienience of wearing a sweater or shorts be worth it?
If the average office worker could do 1/4 to 1/3 of their work remotely, using today's technology (which I think is entirely feasable), how much fuel use could be avoided? (not to mention sanity gained)
if US households used the same amount of electricity as European ones, total household energy consumption in the US would fall by 60%. Wow.
Most energy-efficient appliances easily pay for themselves.
Easter, on the other hand, is one of the most isolated pieces of land in the world. It was empty until well after year 0, and might have even been uninhabited until the middle ages. However, the island was blessed with a verdant ecosystem, and the first settlers probably thought they had stumbled into a paradise. Unlike in Greenland, the island's resources allowed a dynamic civilization to quickly spring into being. The islanders erected massive statues across the island, and developed a complex society.
Despite their clear differences, both Greenland and Easter suffered the same fate. Both civilizations were decimated by poor resource management. By the time new waves of explorers arrived on the two islands, the non-Inuit Greenlanders were completely extinct and the society of Easter had degenerated into poorly nourished and warring factions, with many of the massive statues toppled to the ground.
The reason for these collapses was that the islanders did not have the ability to maintain sustainable resource usage. In Greenland, the lack of natural forests and the marginal agricultural yields could not support a European agricultural civilization once the climate began to cool. Even as their situation became more dire, with falling crop yields and the cessation of wood imports, the Greenlanders held on to their way of life.
Only once it was too late did the Greenlanders attempt to adapt to their situation. They began to rely more on the sea for their food, but with no way to repair or replace their aging wooden ships, they could not feed everyone. They never learned to build boats out of animal material, as the Inuit did, and they never abandoned their farms. Because they were unable to adapt, they vanished.
On Easter, something slightly different happened. The island was so plentiful when the colonists arrived that there was no thought of resource conservation. Trees were felled en masse to provide wood for various uses, including the rollers probably used to build the moai. The birds and sea life on the island were hunted to provide food for an exploding population.
By the mid-second millennium AD, the resources of Easter were beginning to run dry. The forests that had once covered the island were gone, and the birds and marine life were harder and harder to find. At this stage, however, Easter was still an absolute monarchy. It is possible that a prescient ruler could have implemented resource management policies, as happened in Hawaii and other places.
Unfortunately, perhaps in response to the island's problems, the monarch was deposed and a new system was put in place whereby the first islander to capture the egg of a particular bird each year became the custodian of the island's resources. Thus, frequent leadership changes and inexperienced administration prevented the establishment of any coherent policy, and the complex society of Easter slowly faded away.
The modern world can learn much from these two stories, seeing as how we are essentially an island within a vast universe. The Earth is not as harsh (on average) as Greenland nor is it changing at as rapid a pace. Likewise, the resources of the Earth are not depleted to the extent that Easter's were. Despite this, the fact remains that many of our resources are being depleted rapidly, and those resources are at least as integral to our society as timber and food resources were to Greenland and Easter.
There are two key lessons that come from these histories that can be a helpful framework for policy development. The first is perhaps self evident, but our islanders certainly did not grasp it. It is the simple truth that prudent (and global) resource management is necessary to avoid catastrophe. Despite the fact that we are a fragmented world, with no strong leadership on resource management, we must not let that be our downfall, as it was for Easter's people.
The second lesson is that we must not be afraid to change, as the Greenlanders were. Our current model is not sufficient, and we should be aware of this. It is painfully obvious that we are using up the Earth's resources at an alarming rate. I liken this to a corporate balance sheet. The resources regenerated/discovered each year can be though of as revenues and the consumption as expenses. Any expenses in excess of revenues must be covered through debt, essentially a reduction of net assets.
If one accepts that we are currently using up the net assets of the Earth, and one also accepts that active management is necessary (i.e. the problem will not fix itself), there are essentially three ways to deal with the problem. Continuing with my balance sheet analogy, you can either increase revenues, decrease expenses, or decrease the average expense per unit of revenue. Let's look at these three options in detail:
1. Increasing Revenues - Whether or not this approach is even possible depends on the resource you are looking at. For resources like metals and land, this approach has no relevance, because those resources are generally non-substitutable and finite.
For a second set of resources, including energy resources, limited increases to revenue might be possible through technology, but the biggest gains can come from a change in "revenue mix". Think of this as being akin to Apple realizing in the late 1990's that its revenue stream from computers was essentially maximized. They shifted their strategy to obtain revenue from other, related, products (like music players and phones). This same shift can be accomplished by transferring energy usage to underutilized resources like solar and wind.
Finally, there are a third set of resources where revenues can be increased with prudent management and technology development. Some underutilized energy resources (like uranium and deuterium) and many renewable resources (like timber and food) fall into this category.
2. Improving Efficiency (expense per unit of revenue) - This is the most self explanatory of the three areas. Efforts to improve the efficiency of resources are concentrated in two areas. The first area is technological improvements, such as more efficient power plants or vehicles. The second area is improved recycling, which is especially important for resources like metals.
3. Decreasing Expenses - This is the category where the biggest potential for change exists, but it is also the one that is the most politically difficult. Reductions in "expenses" can only be achieved in one of two ways, by decreasing per-capita consumption or by decreases in population. Neither of these will be easy sells, and any policy of population control could turn out horribly wrong. Still, it is likely that part of any solution to our consumption problem will have to be found in this category.
I know that this post is less specific than others in terms of the actual externalities that need to be addressed, but I feel that the problems have been sufficiently illustrated. I will therefore jump right to some potential policy solutions.
1. Implementation of my previous proposals will help to correct our resource imbalance, especially for land and energy resources. It will also advance the development of new resource technologies.
2. Technology must be seen as an important part of environmental solutions. I will discuss this more in my next post.
3. A long-term tax policy shift away from income tax and toward consumption taxes, as I have previously advocated, would be an excellent place to start on the "expenses" side of things.
4. Supporting the sustainable development and urbanization of poor countries is one of the best ways to decrease our population growth rate. All the evidence suggests that the richer and more urbanized a country is, the lower its growth rate. This is because children are no longer an economic benefit, like they are in subsistience-agriculture based societies.
5. Making sure appropriate contraceptive methods, and information on their use, are available in developing countries for free will not only slow the spread of AIDS, but will also help contain population growth and the consequent consumption increases.
6. It is important that current recycling programs be maintained, and new ways of recycling (like making biofuel from garbage) are explored.
7. These proposals will not be enough. It is likely, that even with new technologies, that the Earth will only be able to sustainably support a few billion people at current North American levels of consumption. Since our population will likely be higher than that well into the future, and since we hope to bring many more people up to an acceptable standard of living, it is probable that those of us in the rich world will have to make some sacrifices.
I am just as unwilling as the next person to give up many of the material pleasures I have gained at the expense of the earth. For example, I will never be a vegetarian, even if it is better for the planet. Nor will I stop travelling. However, I do believe that everyone does use things they don't really need, or even want. I believe that if appropriate public policy is implemented and people start to change their mindset on consumption, that a long-term, sustainable Earth can be built, with around 7-8 billion people living on our planet with similar quality of life to what Canadians enjoy today.
Food for thought:
How much energy would be saved if all buildings were only heated to 15 degrees in the winter and cooled to 25 degrees in the summer (subject to the relaxation of corporate dress codes)? Wouldn't the inconvienience of wearing a sweater or shorts be worth it?
If the average office worker could do 1/4 to 1/3 of their work remotely, using today's technology (which I think is entirely feasable), how much fuel use could be avoided? (not to mention sanity gained)
if US households used the same amount of electricity as European ones, total household energy consumption in the US would fall by 60%. Wow.
Most energy-efficient appliances easily pay for themselves.
Deep Blues (4 of 6)
This post, as the title suggests, is going to be about the world's oceans and skies. However, before I get started on the environmental issues concerning air and water, I want to diverge for a minute.
In 1960, Dr. Frank Drake created an equation, that now bears his name, to estimate the number of extraterrestrial life-forms that we might possibly communicate with. Most of the parameters in his equation cannot be established with any certainty, but the results are quite interesting. Below, I list the factors in his equation, along with an *Optimistic*, a best guess and a (pessimistic) estimation.
R - Average rate of star formation in our galaxy - Known to be ~7/yr
multiplied by
Fp - Fraction of those stars which form planets - *.5*, .15, (.05)
multiplied by
Ne - Number of above planets/moons per solar system that could potentially support life - *2*, 1.5, (.05)
multiplied by
Fl - Fraction of above that actually develop life - *1*, .33, (.13)
multiplied by
Fi - Fraction of the above that develop intelligent life - *.5*, .01, (.001)
multiplied by
Fc - Fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate with us- *.1*, .01, (.01)
multiplied by
L - The average length of time the above state persists - *100,000*, 10,000, (500)
These estimations suggest the following results:
In 1960, Dr. Frank Drake created an equation, that now bears his name, to estimate the number of extraterrestrial life-forms that we might possibly communicate with. Most of the parameters in his equation cannot be established with any certainty, but the results are quite interesting. Below, I list the factors in his equation, along with an *Optimistic*, a best guess and a (pessimistic) estimation.
R - Average rate of star formation in our galaxy - Known to be ~7/yr
multiplied by
Fp - Fraction of those stars which form planets - *.5*, .15, (.05)
multiplied by
Ne - Number of above planets/moons per solar system that could potentially support life - *2*, 1.5, (.05)
multiplied by
Fl - Fraction of above that actually develop life - *1*, .33, (.13)
multiplied by
Fi - Fraction of the above that develop intelligent life - *.5*, .01, (.001)
multiplied by
Fc - Fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate with us- *.1*, .01, (.01)
multiplied by
L - The average length of time the above state persists - *100,000*, 10,000, (500)
These estimations suggest the following results:
The number of intelligent species that exist is likely between 1 (ourselves) and 35,000, with the best guess being around 50. The number that are willing and able to communicate with us is much lower, between zero and 3,500, with a best guess of either zero or one. This would explain the Fermi Paradox, which states "if extraterrestrial life is so common, why haven't we observed it?"
The point of all this is to illustrate that the development of humanity was quite unlikely, given the relatively small numbers above compared with estimates of 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy. Even if you look at all the instances that could have existed in the lifetime of our galaxy (assuming the first terrestrial planets forming around 6 billion years ago, an average time to the creation of life of a billion years and about 4.5 billion years on average to get from microbes to intelligence), the best guess is about 2.5 million instances of intelligent life, and only 25,000 with the capacity and willingness to communicate. In such a huge galaxy, it is an indication that our planet and ourselves are really quite a rarity.
Two factors which enabled the unlikely event of human sentience were the abundance of water on earth (water being a particularly useful substance for life) and the particular composition of our atmosphere (influenced by life), which created enough of a greenhouse effect to make Earth habitable, but did not turn us into another Venus, with oven-like surface temperatures.
It is therefore critical to our survival as a race to develop ways of managing our water and our air. If we are ever to leave Earth, and exist in either closed habitats in outer space or on the moon, or undertake massive geoengineering to terraform Mars or Venus into places that humans can live (thereby removing most significant threats to humanity's continued existence), it will become even more important.
Fortunatley, of all our environmental challenges, this is the one where the most effective action has already been taken. Programs to reduce ozone layer depletion and acid rain have been resounding successes. General air pollution reduction programs have also been successful. The remaining challenges mostly lie with the following externalities:
1. Industrial runoff and human/agricultural waste are damaging water quality (both fresh and ocean) around the world. This is resulting in ecosystem damage as well as human water shortages and increased incendences of diseased/unsafe water.
2. Since fresh water is not well-regulated, it results in a tragedy of the commons, where it is in everyone's interest to overexploit the resource. This is creating fresh water shortages in many countries.
3. There are still significant problems with non-CO2 air pollutants, which contribute less to GHG emissions but more to other problems of air pollution.
4. In many areas, the human population has simply exceeded the carrying capacity of the available water resources. Once again, this is an externality associated with population growth, but can be addressed as a water management issue.
I would propose the following strategies to address these problems:
1. My previous proposals to reduce GHG's must be implemented, as the reduction in use of fossil fuels for transport and power generation will also result in the reduction of other air pollutants.
2. Existing regulations on air pollution should be harmonized around the world, and tightened in the areas where there is scientific consensus (such as for the emission of ozone). Once harmonization is complete, I would advocate gradual tightening of regulations over time.
3. The increased urbanization I previously proposed would make water recycling and waste management easier, and decrease agricultural runoff. It would also help (along with renewable power generation) to make desalination a more economically viable option.
4. Continued research into types of plastics that biodegrade and programs to reduce plastic use in general would help alleviate detrimental effects of plastic waste.
5. In areas of water scarcity, some type of tax on excessive water usage is probably a worthwhile consideration. It fits with my overall belief about taxing bad things rather than good things.
6. Some of the ideas I will present in my next post, about carrying capacity and general resource use, have implications for these issues as well.
Wild Places of the Earth (3 of 6)
Unlike the subject of global warming, the subject of land use is not easy to sensationalize, or even define. However, it is an equally critical issue, and equal effort must be devoted to addressing it. Global warming can be defined and addressed using only two externalities, GHG emissions and destruction of carbon sinks. Land use is much more complex, and will require a more multifaceted explanation. I will start with a look at the externalities created through land use. I would suggest that the negative externalities related to land use include the following:
1. Decrease in carbon sinks due to land use change affects atmospheric carbon
2. Destruction of habitat damages ecosystems and biodiversity and subsequently affects quality of life
3. Desertification is reducing land available for agriculture or conservation
4. Deforestation for agriculture is causing erosion and infertility in nutrient-poor soils
5. 98% of the world's arable land is already under cultivation. This means that the 50% more people that will be alive in 40 years will be difficult to feed (really an externality associated with population growth, but can be addressed as a land-use issue)
6. Damage caused by the use of pesticides and other chemicals in agriculture
7. Depletion of fresh water reserves through use of extensive irrigation in agriculture.
8. The distribution of human populations and demand for uniform product availability forces expensive and environmentally damaging infrastructure & transportation costs, as well as increased use of food processing & preserving techniques (again, an externality associated with population distribution, but related to land use)
9. Damage to key biomes like rainforest, coral reefs and wetlands are reducing valuable "ecosystem services" like watershed management, nitrogen fixation and waste treatment.
Not all of these externalities are going to be able to be 100% eliminated, and I would not advocate such steps even if it was possible. Entirely mitigating these externalities would result in a radical chnage in human existence, and would fundamentally alter the world economy. I instead advocate a series of steps designed to gradually shift human society toward a more sustainable model and to blunt some of the most destructive effects of human land use without inflicting serious economic harm.
I also feel as though I should disclose my ultimate vision for what the sustainable earth of the long-term future would look like. Significant technological improvement and social change is a prerequisite for this vision, and I believe that even if the vision was universally adopted, its implementation would take a century or more. I simply present it as a template to model policy after, because without such a goal, I don't believe a complex policy approach can be successful.
My future Earth would be one of "urban islands" within a largely unspoiled landscape. Assuming a stable, long-term population of about 9 billion, I think about 8 billion could be housed within approximatley 6500 cities, of which the vast majority would have populations around 1-2 million, but where around 200 would be megaopolises with populations of 10m or greater. The remaining billion people would remain in rural areas in order to undertake tasks that cannot be centralized (such as mining or hydroelectric power generation). This would represent a fall in the earth's rural population by 2/3.
With that level of urbanization, significant portions of land could be returned to their natural state. In my ideal future world, 50% of the world's land would be returned to a pre-human state, with no human impact except for tourism (hopefully eco-tourism). Included in this 50% would be at least 50% of original (pre-agriculture) land area of each of the Earth's 14 terrestrial biomes. (For a list of the terrestrial biomes, see wikipedia). Additionally, any region defined as a biodiversity hotspot would recieve additional attention and an attempt would be made to restore as much of the original area as feasable (without knocking down cities).
For some biomes, this will be easy. Far less than 50% of the Earth's tundra and boreal forest have been substantially affected by human activity. Keeping it that way should be fairly painless, as most of the land does not have substantial economic value. Other biomes, like wetlands and rainforest, are going to be substantially more difficult. Many of these biomes have already lost more than 50% of their orginal land area and achieving the goals I have set out would require the reduction of human land use.
A reduction in human land use will require changes in agriculture. The vast majority of non-urban land modified by human activity has been for agriculture of some kind. In order to move towards increasing the "wild lands" of the Earth, agriculture must change. Coincidentally, demographics are going to force it to change anyway, so the time is ripe if this change can be managed in a positive way.
Given the externalities to mitigate, the goals I have set out and the realities of the situation, there is at least some basis for the beginnings of a policy framework. I will discuss policies here that are specific to Canada, although many of them can be adapted for usage elsewhere.
1. In 2003, approximatley 6.3% of Canada's land area was classified as "protected" by the IUCN. The global average is 10.8%. I believe that the government should endeavour to bring Canada's percentage up to the global average within ten years (and gradually increase it thereafter). This would be done by enlarging existing preserves or creating new ones, with the biomes that have been most reduced in Canada being the primary targets for conservation. Additionally, lands currently under cultivation that are only marginally arable (require massive amounts of irrigation, fertilizer or pesticides) should be targeted for purchase and restoration to orginal status.
2. A study should be done to examine the various ways of implementing a system of urban "vertical farming" (see http://www.verticalfarm.com/). If studies show such a system to be feasable with limited government support and without violating Canada's free trade agreements, development programs should be put in place immediately. I believe that the system will turn out to be economical at large enough scales, especially for crops that are usually imported from a long ways away, and will provide a much less envrionmentally damaging form of agriculture, since most inputs can be recycled and pesticides become unneccessary. Incedentally, a vertical farming program also has the potential to create many high-skill jobs in Canada, and should provide better quality, fresher food.
3. Incentives should be provided to encourage population consolidation in Canada, both within urban areas and overall. Urban development projects that create high density communities served by efficient public transit should be promoted, while excessive suburbanization should be discouraged. A second set of incentives should be provided for people to move from small towns into larger towns or cities. Associated with this migration will neccessarily have to be a further consolidation of agriculture so that the work can be done with fewer people.
4. Within both existing and new forms of agriculture, research grants should be set up for projects aiming to increase the nutritional content or yield of crops, or to decrease the needed water, fertilizer or pesticides. Genetically engineered crops combined with vertical farming offer the long term potential to drastically reduce our need for traditional agriculture and the associated land use and other environmental problems.
5. Canada should take the lead in promoting sensible solutions for land use issues worldwide. Canada, due to its low population density, high urbanization, technological prowess and abundant supplies of fresh water, is not the country where most of these land use issues are most critical. It is important that we keep in mind that we are citizens of the world as well as of Canada, and advocate for similar changes to those above in other countries of the world.
1. Decrease in carbon sinks due to land use change affects atmospheric carbon
2. Destruction of habitat damages ecosystems and biodiversity and subsequently affects quality of life
3. Desertification is reducing land available for agriculture or conservation
4. Deforestation for agriculture is causing erosion and infertility in nutrient-poor soils
5. 98% of the world's arable land is already under cultivation. This means that the 50% more people that will be alive in 40 years will be difficult to feed (really an externality associated with population growth, but can be addressed as a land-use issue)
6. Damage caused by the use of pesticides and other chemicals in agriculture
7. Depletion of fresh water reserves through use of extensive irrigation in agriculture.
8. The distribution of human populations and demand for uniform product availability forces expensive and environmentally damaging infrastructure & transportation costs, as well as increased use of food processing & preserving techniques (again, an externality associated with population distribution, but related to land use)
9. Damage to key biomes like rainforest, coral reefs and wetlands are reducing valuable "ecosystem services" like watershed management, nitrogen fixation and waste treatment.
Not all of these externalities are going to be able to be 100% eliminated, and I would not advocate such steps even if it was possible. Entirely mitigating these externalities would result in a radical chnage in human existence, and would fundamentally alter the world economy. I instead advocate a series of steps designed to gradually shift human society toward a more sustainable model and to blunt some of the most destructive effects of human land use without inflicting serious economic harm.
I also feel as though I should disclose my ultimate vision for what the sustainable earth of the long-term future would look like. Significant technological improvement and social change is a prerequisite for this vision, and I believe that even if the vision was universally adopted, its implementation would take a century or more. I simply present it as a template to model policy after, because without such a goal, I don't believe a complex policy approach can be successful.
My future Earth would be one of "urban islands" within a largely unspoiled landscape. Assuming a stable, long-term population of about 9 billion, I think about 8 billion could be housed within approximatley 6500 cities, of which the vast majority would have populations around 1-2 million, but where around 200 would be megaopolises with populations of 10m or greater. The remaining billion people would remain in rural areas in order to undertake tasks that cannot be centralized (such as mining or hydroelectric power generation). This would represent a fall in the earth's rural population by 2/3.
With that level of urbanization, significant portions of land could be returned to their natural state. In my ideal future world, 50% of the world's land would be returned to a pre-human state, with no human impact except for tourism (hopefully eco-tourism). Included in this 50% would be at least 50% of original (pre-agriculture) land area of each of the Earth's 14 terrestrial biomes. (For a list of the terrestrial biomes, see wikipedia). Additionally, any region defined as a biodiversity hotspot would recieve additional attention and an attempt would be made to restore as much of the original area as feasable (without knocking down cities).
For some biomes, this will be easy. Far less than 50% of the Earth's tundra and boreal forest have been substantially affected by human activity. Keeping it that way should be fairly painless, as most of the land does not have substantial economic value. Other biomes, like wetlands and rainforest, are going to be substantially more difficult. Many of these biomes have already lost more than 50% of their orginal land area and achieving the goals I have set out would require the reduction of human land use.
A reduction in human land use will require changes in agriculture. The vast majority of non-urban land modified by human activity has been for agriculture of some kind. In order to move towards increasing the "wild lands" of the Earth, agriculture must change. Coincidentally, demographics are going to force it to change anyway, so the time is ripe if this change can be managed in a positive way.
Given the externalities to mitigate, the goals I have set out and the realities of the situation, there is at least some basis for the beginnings of a policy framework. I will discuss policies here that are specific to Canada, although many of them can be adapted for usage elsewhere.
1. In 2003, approximatley 6.3% of Canada's land area was classified as "protected" by the IUCN. The global average is 10.8%. I believe that the government should endeavour to bring Canada's percentage up to the global average within ten years (and gradually increase it thereafter). This would be done by enlarging existing preserves or creating new ones, with the biomes that have been most reduced in Canada being the primary targets for conservation. Additionally, lands currently under cultivation that are only marginally arable (require massive amounts of irrigation, fertilizer or pesticides) should be targeted for purchase and restoration to orginal status.
2. A study should be done to examine the various ways of implementing a system of urban "vertical farming" (see http://www.verticalfarm.com/). If studies show such a system to be feasable with limited government support and without violating Canada's free trade agreements, development programs should be put in place immediately. I believe that the system will turn out to be economical at large enough scales, especially for crops that are usually imported from a long ways away, and will provide a much less envrionmentally damaging form of agriculture, since most inputs can be recycled and pesticides become unneccessary. Incedentally, a vertical farming program also has the potential to create many high-skill jobs in Canada, and should provide better quality, fresher food.
3. Incentives should be provided to encourage population consolidation in Canada, both within urban areas and overall. Urban development projects that create high density communities served by efficient public transit should be promoted, while excessive suburbanization should be discouraged. A second set of incentives should be provided for people to move from small towns into larger towns or cities. Associated with this migration will neccessarily have to be a further consolidation of agriculture so that the work can be done with fewer people.
4. Within both existing and new forms of agriculture, research grants should be set up for projects aiming to increase the nutritional content or yield of crops, or to decrease the needed water, fertilizer or pesticides. Genetically engineered crops combined with vertical farming offer the long term potential to drastically reduce our need for traditional agriculture and the associated land use and other environmental problems.
5. Canada should take the lead in promoting sensible solutions for land use issues worldwide. Canada, due to its low population density, high urbanization, technological prowess and abundant supplies of fresh water, is not the country where most of these land use issues are most critical. It is important that we keep in mind that we are citizens of the world as well as of Canada, and advocate for similar changes to those above in other countries of the world.
Not A Convenient Falsehood (2 of 6)
Global warming is certainly the environmental issue of the decade. In fact, I believe that the debate over global warming has risen to a level where it actually begins to detract from other environmental causes. As I have previously noted, I believe that global warming is a real threat, and at least partially caused by human activity, but I also recognize that a cool Earth is no use if it is a cool wasteland. Global warming must be dealt with, but not at the expense of dealing with other problems.
The prognosis on global warming is as follows, according to Wikipedia:
"Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other likely effects include Arctic shrinkage and resulting Arctic methane release, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors."
Clearly, if some of these consequences can be mitigated, it is our responsibility to take action. In order to develop a pragmatic and effective apprach to global warming, the externalities associated with it must be identified.
Research suggests that of the atmospheric changes that can reasonably be attributed to human activity, about 75% is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels and most of the rest is due to land use change, such as deforestation. It follows (obviously in this case) that the action needed to mitigate global warming-related externalities must address both these issues.
I will discuss proposals for land-use reform in a future post, and will here discuss strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. About 86% of world energy needs are provided through the burning of fossil fuels. More specifically, about 37% come from oil, 25% from coal and 23% from natural gas. Coal is the largest contributor to GHG's, with most coal being used for electricity generation. Most natural gas is used for heating or fertilizer production, as well as growing amounts in transportation and electricity generation. Crude oil is overwhelmingly (84%) used for transportation, with the rest being used to make other products, including asphalt, sulfur and plastics.
Given those statistics, it is logical that any attempt to reduce GHG's from fossil fuels will focus on the primary uses of these items, those being transportation, electricity generation, heating and fertilizer production.
Electricity production is probably the area where the most potential for change exists (It produces more emissions than any other source). Proven alternatives exist like wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear fission, and other potential alternatives are in development, like tidal generation or nuclear fusion.
Transportation is the second biggest producer of emissions, and perhaps the largest sticking point, as few credible alternatives exist. Biofuels are (probably) only marginally better in terms of emissions, and require additional agricultural production (bad news..see later posts). Hydrogen and electric vehicles simply shift more emissions to electicity generation, so the success of those alternatives depend on the success of renewable generation.
The usage of natural gas for heating and cooking present a different problem. It turns out that using fossil fuels here is actually more environmentally friendly because so much energy is lost in electrical transmission and most electricity is produced using fossil fuels. It is unlikely that much can be done to reduce these emissions unless renewable generation becomes endemic.
Finally, the issue of producing fertilizer from natural gas via the Haber process must be addressed. Reductions here can be achieved mainly through agricultural innovation, which I will discuss in the later posts on land use change and agricultural conservation. It must be noted, however, that these reductions are also dependant on reliable supplies of renewable electricity.
Because the strategies for reducing GHG's from fertilizer production, heating/cooking and to some extent, transportation rely on the development of clean electricity, I believe that that must be a primary goal. The other primary goal that I can see is emphasizing efficiency over elimination, because that will allow progress to be made on all fronts without waiting for renewable generation to be the norm.
The most difficult part of policy fomulation in this case is taking the theoretical conclusions and objectives and tying them to effective and pragmatic strategies. In this case, a few strategies could be employed.
The biggest incentive to companies (especially power generation companies) to reduce their emissions is to price in the cost of the externality. For GHG's, this is much less difficult than for other externalities because they are easily measured. Two proposals have emerged, that of an emissions trading framework or that of a carbon tax. I tend to favour the trading approach for three reasons:
1. Carbon Taxes do not neccessarily result in emissions reductions. It would be extremely difficult to balance the tax so that it achieved substantial GHG reduction while still allowing businesses to be competitive.
2. Carbon Trading reflects the fact that in some industries it would be easy and cheap to reduce emissions, while in others it would be very expensive and difficult. A uniform Carbon Tax would be much less efficient at allocating emissions reductions to the sectors where they would do the least economic harm.
3. In Canada, a carbon tax is essentially a method of equalization. Most of the tax revenue would come from the wealthier, industrial areas like Alberta and Ontario, and the offsetting tax reductions would likely be spread evenly across the country. A Carbon Trading scheme could be built to avoid this problem.
The type of Carbon Trading scheme I would build would be one where absolute emissions would be capped at current levels and decrease by ~2-3% per year for 50 years. Emissions credits would be distributed at the beginning of each year. Initially, I would propose that credits be allocated based 75% on current emission levels and 25% based on an auction format, and that the percentage of credits auctioned off increase by 2% each year until it reaches 100% . However, to prevent regional wealth transfer, the auction revenues would be divided based on provincial emissions percentage and returned to the provinces for use in funding the other measures I describe below.
Carbon Trading is useful in reducing overall emissions and increasing efficiency, but it is not a comprehensive solution. It does not go far enough in incentivising the development of renewable power generation, a key goal. Also, it only achieves emissions reduction from businesses, and not individuals.I would therefore propose the following additional measures.
1. Usage of the auction proceeds from above, on a provincial basis, for funding provincially-appropriate measures to encourage renewable energy development.
2. Creation of a series of research grants and prizes for the development of certain technologies key to long-term renewable energy supplies as well as nuclear fusion.
3. Canada should immediately rejoin the ITER project, which it left in 2003.
4. A moritorium on new coal-fired powerplants that do not have carbon capture technology should be considered, and implemented if the economic cost would be reasonable.
5. Modification of the GST should be considered, towards a revenue-neutral system where items have three classifications: Harmful (A), Neutral (B) and Benefit (C), based on their environmental impact. Category A items should be subject to 10% GST, 5% for B items, and C items should be GST-free. Companies should be able to obtain a refund on the extra GST in Category A, because they already participate in emissions trading. These changes would be subject to a review of the administrative costs, which could be high, but I believe they are neccessary to encourage emissions reduction among private citizens.
These measures, I believe, would start Canada on the road to substantial emissions reductions. The emissions trading scheme alone would reduce emissions by around 50% by 2050, and with the other measures it could be even more substantial. I also believe that these proposals are sensible and pragmatic, and would not result in excessive economic harm or the substantial enlargement of government.
The prognosis on global warming is as follows, according to Wikipedia:
"Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other likely effects include Arctic shrinkage and resulting Arctic methane release, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors."
Clearly, if some of these consequences can be mitigated, it is our responsibility to take action. In order to develop a pragmatic and effective apprach to global warming, the externalities associated with it must be identified.
Research suggests that of the atmospheric changes that can reasonably be attributed to human activity, about 75% is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels and most of the rest is due to land use change, such as deforestation. It follows (obviously in this case) that the action needed to mitigate global warming-related externalities must address both these issues.
I will discuss proposals for land-use reform in a future post, and will here discuss strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. About 86% of world energy needs are provided through the burning of fossil fuels. More specifically, about 37% come from oil, 25% from coal and 23% from natural gas. Coal is the largest contributor to GHG's, with most coal being used for electricity generation. Most natural gas is used for heating or fertilizer production, as well as growing amounts in transportation and electricity generation. Crude oil is overwhelmingly (84%) used for transportation, with the rest being used to make other products, including asphalt, sulfur and plastics.
Given those statistics, it is logical that any attempt to reduce GHG's from fossil fuels will focus on the primary uses of these items, those being transportation, electricity generation, heating and fertilizer production.
Electricity production is probably the area where the most potential for change exists (It produces more emissions than any other source). Proven alternatives exist like wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear fission, and other potential alternatives are in development, like tidal generation or nuclear fusion.
Transportation is the second biggest producer of emissions, and perhaps the largest sticking point, as few credible alternatives exist. Biofuels are (probably) only marginally better in terms of emissions, and require additional agricultural production (bad news..see later posts). Hydrogen and electric vehicles simply shift more emissions to electicity generation, so the success of those alternatives depend on the success of renewable generation.
The usage of natural gas for heating and cooking present a different problem. It turns out that using fossil fuels here is actually more environmentally friendly because so much energy is lost in electrical transmission and most electricity is produced using fossil fuels. It is unlikely that much can be done to reduce these emissions unless renewable generation becomes endemic.
Finally, the issue of producing fertilizer from natural gas via the Haber process must be addressed. Reductions here can be achieved mainly through agricultural innovation, which I will discuss in the later posts on land use change and agricultural conservation. It must be noted, however, that these reductions are also dependant on reliable supplies of renewable electricity.
Because the strategies for reducing GHG's from fertilizer production, heating/cooking and to some extent, transportation rely on the development of clean electricity, I believe that that must be a primary goal. The other primary goal that I can see is emphasizing efficiency over elimination, because that will allow progress to be made on all fronts without waiting for renewable generation to be the norm.
The most difficult part of policy fomulation in this case is taking the theoretical conclusions and objectives and tying them to effective and pragmatic strategies. In this case, a few strategies could be employed.
The biggest incentive to companies (especially power generation companies) to reduce their emissions is to price in the cost of the externality. For GHG's, this is much less difficult than for other externalities because they are easily measured. Two proposals have emerged, that of an emissions trading framework or that of a carbon tax. I tend to favour the trading approach for three reasons:
1. Carbon Taxes do not neccessarily result in emissions reductions. It would be extremely difficult to balance the tax so that it achieved substantial GHG reduction while still allowing businesses to be competitive.
2. Carbon Trading reflects the fact that in some industries it would be easy and cheap to reduce emissions, while in others it would be very expensive and difficult. A uniform Carbon Tax would be much less efficient at allocating emissions reductions to the sectors where they would do the least economic harm.
3. In Canada, a carbon tax is essentially a method of equalization. Most of the tax revenue would come from the wealthier, industrial areas like Alberta and Ontario, and the offsetting tax reductions would likely be spread evenly across the country. A Carbon Trading scheme could be built to avoid this problem.
The type of Carbon Trading scheme I would build would be one where absolute emissions would be capped at current levels and decrease by ~2-3% per year for 50 years. Emissions credits would be distributed at the beginning of each year. Initially, I would propose that credits be allocated based 75% on current emission levels and 25% based on an auction format, and that the percentage of credits auctioned off increase by 2% each year until it reaches 100% . However, to prevent regional wealth transfer, the auction revenues would be divided based on provincial emissions percentage and returned to the provinces for use in funding the other measures I describe below.
Carbon Trading is useful in reducing overall emissions and increasing efficiency, but it is not a comprehensive solution. It does not go far enough in incentivising the development of renewable power generation, a key goal. Also, it only achieves emissions reduction from businesses, and not individuals.I would therefore propose the following additional measures.
1. Usage of the auction proceeds from above, on a provincial basis, for funding provincially-appropriate measures to encourage renewable energy development.
2. Creation of a series of research grants and prizes for the development of certain technologies key to long-term renewable energy supplies as well as nuclear fusion.
3. Canada should immediately rejoin the ITER project, which it left in 2003.
4. A moritorium on new coal-fired powerplants that do not have carbon capture technology should be considered, and implemented if the economic cost would be reasonable.
5. Modification of the GST should be considered, towards a revenue-neutral system where items have three classifications: Harmful (A), Neutral (B) and Benefit (C), based on their environmental impact. Category A items should be subject to 10% GST, 5% for B items, and C items should be GST-free. Companies should be able to obtain a refund on the extra GST in Category A, because they already participate in emissions trading. These changes would be subject to a review of the administrative costs, which could be high, but I believe they are neccessary to encourage emissions reduction among private citizens.
These measures, I believe, would start Canada on the road to substantial emissions reductions. The emissions trading scheme alone would reduce emissions by around 50% by 2050, and with the other measures it could be even more substantial. I also believe that these proposals are sensible and pragmatic, and would not result in excessive economic harm or the substantial enlargement of government.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Conservative Conservationism (1 of 6)
This idea is a strange one. The conservative parties of the world have historically been fairly hostile towards the conservation movement in general (with the strange and interesting exception of the US Republican Party), and certainly hostile towards "environmentalists," however one might define that term. I believe, as a 21st century conservative, that this must change. Conservatives around the world must recognize that there are some very valid concerns within the conservation movement that must be addressed, whatever the historical political leanings of environmentalists. This policy is going to have to be built from the ground up, especially in Canada, where conservatives have generally been ignorant or apathetic towards environmental issues.
I believe that the foundation of a conservative environmental policy can be found within two existing conservative philosophies, those concerning the management of the economy and the role of government.
Most conservatives believe that no society can remain prosperous and dynamic without a strong economy. A conservative environmental policy, therefore, must not compromise economic growth in a significant way. However, keeping the economy strong in the long term will require sustainability and achieving this sustainability should form the core of a conservative environmental policy.
With respect to the role of government, most conservatives would like to see a government that is as small and efficient as possible. Many conservatives are sceptical of commonly proposed solutions to environmental problems, because those solutions often involve big government mandates, with significant public expenditure to fund programs administered by the bureaucracy. A conservative environmental policy must incorporate these concerns, and be geared towards public-private partnerships, incentives, efficiency and revenue neutrality.
Given those two factors, I would argue that an effective and conservative environmental policy should be based on the management of externalities. In order to explain what I mean by that, it is necessary to discuss what I am defining as an externality. Wikipedia provides a concise explanation:
"An externality is an impact on any party not directly involved in an economic decision. An externality occurs when an economic activity causes external costs or external benefits to third party stakeholders who did not directly affect the economic transaction. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on others.
In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would mean that either too much or too little of the good would be produced and consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. If there exist external costs (negative externalities) such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits (positive externalities) such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others."
The role of the government, then, is to provide those services that create positive externalities in a fair and equitable way (health care, education, national defense, law enforcement etc), and to regulate or otherwise deter those activities that create negative externalities.
Most of the environmental issues facing the world today are caused by negative externalities stemming from human activity. By seeking pragmatic and efficient ways to mitigate these externalities, and providing incentives to create positive environmental externalities, a cohesive environmental policy can be established. It cannot focus only on the key issue of the day, because any approach dominated by a single issue, like global warming, cannot be a successful solution to a multifaceted issue like conservation.
This post is getting towards the long side, so I will leave it here, and elaborate on specific policy prescriptions for specific issues in five future posts.
I believe that the foundation of a conservative environmental policy can be found within two existing conservative philosophies, those concerning the management of the economy and the role of government.
Most conservatives believe that no society can remain prosperous and dynamic without a strong economy. A conservative environmental policy, therefore, must not compromise economic growth in a significant way. However, keeping the economy strong in the long term will require sustainability and achieving this sustainability should form the core of a conservative environmental policy.
With respect to the role of government, most conservatives would like to see a government that is as small and efficient as possible. Many conservatives are sceptical of commonly proposed solutions to environmental problems, because those solutions often involve big government mandates, with significant public expenditure to fund programs administered by the bureaucracy. A conservative environmental policy must incorporate these concerns, and be geared towards public-private partnerships, incentives, efficiency and revenue neutrality.
Given those two factors, I would argue that an effective and conservative environmental policy should be based on the management of externalities. In order to explain what I mean by that, it is necessary to discuss what I am defining as an externality. Wikipedia provides a concise explanation:
"An externality is an impact on any party not directly involved in an economic decision. An externality occurs when an economic activity causes external costs or external benefits to third party stakeholders who did not directly affect the economic transaction. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on others.
In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would mean that either too much or too little of the good would be produced and consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. If there exist external costs (negative externalities) such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits (positive externalities) such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others."
The role of the government, then, is to provide those services that create positive externalities in a fair and equitable way (health care, education, national defense, law enforcement etc), and to regulate or otherwise deter those activities that create negative externalities.
Most of the environmental issues facing the world today are caused by negative externalities stemming from human activity. By seeking pragmatic and efficient ways to mitigate these externalities, and providing incentives to create positive environmental externalities, a cohesive environmental policy can be established. It cannot focus only on the key issue of the day, because any approach dominated by a single issue, like global warming, cannot be a successful solution to a multifaceted issue like conservation.
This post is getting towards the long side, so I will leave it here, and elaborate on specific policy prescriptions for specific issues in five future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)