In the previous five posts, I have explored and fleshed out my ideas on many philosophical ideas. I believe I have constructed a rational set of conclusions that reflect the best knowledge I have about the universe, and that these ideas can be built on further in this post.
The main conclusions I have reached so far are:
1. It is logical to assume the universe exists largely as I observe it.
2. The explanations for why the universe is the way it is can be split into two groups, those postulating some purpose for life, and those that do not. Either group could contain the correct answer, I believe the purposeful existence to be slightly more likely.
3. There are several guiding principles that people should use to decide how to live their lives. They include:
- People should act to ensure the survival of intelligent life by any necessary means
- People should endeavour to discover a possible purpose to our existence through study, observation and exploration of the universe. They should also use this increased knowledge to refine their moral views
- People should promote the establishment of free societies wherever they do not already exist, and encourage as much discussion and debate as they can within their own societies
- People should recognize the validity of a variety of viewpoints, and avoid fundamentalism and self-righteousness
-People should try to make sure that their decisions, moral and otherwise, are as nonzero-sum as possible, and should promote increased nonzero-sumness within their societies (and between societies) by increasing communication and trust
I think that those statements are a pretty good foundation for my belief system. However, to complete the circle, and build those core statements up towards my political beliefs, more work is needed.
Firstly, I would argue that in order to increase communication and trust, and in order to facilitate free discourse and the study and exploration of the universe, some kind of society is necessary. Anarchism will not work here, because it has at its base a rejection of the type of cooperation necessary for things like global communication networks and large-scale space exploration.
The next thing to consider is the kind of society that should be constructed, beyond the simple requirement of free discourse. Again, the requirements above dictate a technological society, one that accepts and promotes rational thought, questioning of paradigms and allows for new ideas. In my mind, this eliminates the forms of societies that discourage free thought, promote blind acceptance of ideas and discourage deviation.
This disqualifies any totalitarian state, be it fascist or communist, and also disqualifies any theocracy of the kind prevalent today. I do not deny, however, that it would be possible (although probably not with Christianity or Islam), to have an open and accepting theocracy that was in harmony with science and free discourse. This would require a more nuanced interpretation of God than is found in most western religions today, although many of the eastern religions seem to mesh relatively well with a scientific worldview. For now, however, I am of the strong opinion that the principles I have outlined can be accomplished most fully thorough a vigorously defended separation of church and state.
The next point I want to make is that any large-scale, technological and rational society must have some notion of personal responsibility. The evidence for this is empirical, there has been no successful society that has not been based on personal responsibility. This implies a key philosophical assumption, the one that started my whole philosophical investigation. The notion of personal responsibility is absurd without free will. If someone is not in control of their actions, there is no logical reason to punish or reward them for those actions. Therefore, I believe that we must accept the existence of free will. Even if there is no free will, we must continue to believe, and act, as if there is. Right now, I believe there is no conclusive evidence either way, but even if there was, I think we would, in order to have a chance of succeeding as a species, would have to ignore it. This pains me greatly, but I see no other way.
Once we accept that we have free will, I believe the notion of differential reward systems becomes defensible. If people can make free choices, then people can expect different standards of living, within an acceptable range. It is perfectly acceptable for people that perform certain actions, like hard work, to be rewarded to a greater extent than those that do not.
The following question then becomes, what types of actions should qualify a person for such a differential reward? This question is at the foundation of the type of economic system that I support. I believe that the ultimate measuring stick for differential reward should be "contribution to society". A person who makes a society more dynamic and vibrant, or achieves some great advance in understanding, should be rewarded more than someone who contributes nothing. However, it is obviously extremely difficult to build an economic system based on contribution, because there will never be complete agreement on what contributions are most important.
A second factor that is important to consider when discussing an ideal economic system is efficiency. In order to promote the development of a society, especially from a technical/scientific point of view, economic resources must be allocated as efficiently as possible. Inefficient societies will either be replaced my more efficient ones, or simply stagnate or crawl along at a snail's pace.
My view of the empirical evidence is that capitalism, tempered by government management of externalities, tends to be the best system to satisfy those dual criteria of efficiency and reward for contribution. Although the use of a price system and monetary reward has its issues, it is by far the most efficient system we have yet tried, and has produced massive technological advancement, and for the first time, a potential capability to explore the universe and to begin to reduce existential threats to humanity's existence.
In my view, there are three big problems with capitalism that do not naturally coincide with my perceived ultimate goals. The first is one have discussed previously, the existence of externalities in a capitalist economic system. I have previously advocated that management of this problem should be the primary responsibility of the government.
The second, related issue is that of equality of opportunity. If we are to have a system truly based on differential reward, it is essential that everyone have the same opportunity to succeed, otherwise the system will lose both efficiency and fairness. Some of this issue will be addressed by the management of externalities, for example, education and health care are both underproduced by a competitive market, given the positive externalities they create. Government will indirectly promote equality of opportunity by addressing these issues. However, I believe there is more that would need to be done. Even with management of externalities, issues like a de facto "aristocracy" based on inherited wealth (and the opposite, children disadvantaged by the socio-economic performance of their parents) as well as issues of broad-based discrimination might need to be addressed.
The third, and biggest issue, is the difference between contribution and profit. Capitalist systems encourage the maximization of the latter, as we all know. However, I believe empirical evidence clearly shows that although profit-making and contribution are correlated (strongly so), there remains a significant gap. I believe that it is self evident that many people grow rich without contribution, and many contributors live in poverty.
Exactly who these people are is certainly debatable, but I would give my own opinion that it tends to be artists of various kinds and scientists who are under-rewarded in our system and that celebrities of various kinds as well as many people in my own field (finance) and other service industries who are often overvalued. Now it is important to note that finance professionals, lawyers and other service professionals do make significant contributions to the functioning of societies and deserve to be rewarded. I am only stating that I believe it to be excessive in some cases.
Policies that can fix this problem are few and far between. As hard as I try, I cannot find many ways to try and reconcile this difference between contribution and wealth. This, in my view, should be one of the foremost challenges of the 21st century. It may end up requiring a wholesale shift in our economic system over the next century or two, but this is a challenge that I believe can be met incrementally and gradually.
Once we settle on a society with a market economy and recognize the need for a government to manage some parts of that economy,as well as to maintain a free and open society, the next question is about the kind of government that you want. Here the question seems to be around balancing efficiency, which we have established as key, with accountability and the need to preserve fundamental freedom and openness.
Although there certainly seems to be some evidence, including the experience of modern China, to suggest that authoritarian systems have a slight efficiency advantage, there are serious problems with preventing the abuse of power in those systems, because of the lack of accountability. Most authoritarian systems have difficulty maintaining a free society for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, democracy has its own problems. Some democratic systems are vulnerable to paralysis and inaction, either because of checks and balances in the system or because the system promotes highly fragmented coalition governments. Additionally, democracy sometimes has issues with making hard decisions, ones that might be unpopular but necessary.
As much as I have to admit that the Platonic "philosopher kings" might superficially appeal to me, I have to judge that given that since I believe freedom and openness must be the cornerstone of a society, an authoritarian government is too dangerous to accept. We simply cannot take the risk, and must therefore accept democracy as the best, and only choice. Additionally, as I have pointed out in the past, democracies generally have less civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflicts, and rarely fight wars against each other, all of which will help achieve my ultimate goals.
However, that does not mean we cannot attempt to at least minimize democracy's problems. The efficiency problem is a small one, especially when democracy is combined with capitalism. The main steps than can be taken to improve efficiency have to do with regulatory regimes and tax policy. In many cases, efficiency can be improved by simply trying to minimize regulation itself. I believe that in many cases there is far too much government regulation. Where regulation is required, it should be geared towards maximizing efficiency, through doing things like funding hospitals based on services provided and choosing cap & trade systems over flat taxes when trying to minimize carbon emissions. This desire for efficiency is also a contributor to my view on taxation.
The problem of systematic paralysis is more difficult, but seems to have been mostly surmounted in many democratic systems. Here I believe Canada has it at least partially right, in that the executive branch of a democracy needs to be relatively powerful. Gridlock can also be prevented through a multiparty system (ideally 3-5 parties) or even better, doing away with political parties altogether. Canada's system does have some weaknesses, which I have outlined in previous posts, but they generally do not relate to the gridlock issue.
Another problem Canada has managed to avoid is the lack of stability caused by extremely fragmented democracies, which also tend towards the extremes because of the tendency for the balance of power to be held by smaller, fringe parties. This has come at a cost of fairness in some respects, but I have already discussed those issues.
I think that that begins to cover the links between my basic philosophical views and the core of my political beliefs. Most of my other political beliefs drive off of the basis of the key goals at the beginning of the post, and off the subsequent analysis. Specifically, many beliefs come from a perceived necessity for efficiency, nonzero-sumness and tolerance. I will briefly elaborate, but try and keep it short as this post is getting towards the long side.
My views on efficiency inform many of my political beliefs. My views on free trade, agricultural subsidies, the necessity of global regulation, the desirability of a meritocracy (which leads to other policies around equality of opportunity) and other issues, are driven by my belief that we require both an efficient, and increasingly nonzero-sum society.
Another key factor that drives my political views is tolerance. I view a free and tolerant society as non-negotiable, which drives much of my social policy views. My views on regulation also affect my social views; government has no place legislating who can or cannot get married, for example.
There are some views that do not fall clearly within this framework, notably my views on health care and the environment. I believe that these views simply spring from the obvious point that humanity cannot explore the galaxy, drive science to new heights, and ensure our survival as a species if people are not getting quality health care, or if the environment is uninhabitable. There is also something to be said for preserving the diversity of life, for the sake of human knowledge and experience. I think this is why issues of conservation are probably the most important parts of environmental policy for me.
I believe I have accomplished an important task in the last few posts. I believe I have developed a reasonably solid and consistent philosophical foundation for my beliefs, which should help me significantly when I confront future issues and decisions. I am satisfied.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Four Point Five
As luck would have it, less than two days after I posted part four, I got into a fierce discussion with Trent about the nature of morality. I realized that my previous post was inadequate with respect to certain issues. Trent also convinced me of the necessity of modifying my position somewhat. So, part 5 will have to wait, as I attempt to address a few key issues on my ethical philosophy.
Firstly, I must reemphasize that I believe that this moral rationale applies only in the case of a purposeless universe. I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to be certain (or even fairly confident) whether or not humanity/life has an underlying purpose driving its existence, and I therefore believe it is prudent to give consideration to either eventuality. In fact, as I have previously stated, my beliefs lean slightly toward a purposeful existence of one kind or another.
The second thing I must address is my own ignorance. As I have little practical training in philosophy, I have come to realize that some of the terminology I have been using is inaccurate or incomplete from a philosophical standpoint. For example, I use the term "moral relativism" in a broader sense than the specific usage in modern philosophy. When I discuss "moral relativism" I simply mean a rejection of the metaphysical thesis (the truth of a moral statement is based on objective moral facts,which are mind-independent just like non-moral facts) but an affirmation of the semantic thesis (moral statements express propositions) and acceptance of the aletic thesis (some moral propositions are in some way true). I do not mean "cultural relativism".
The other place where I feel I have been ignorant is on the distinctions between the different branches of ethics, as defined in modern philosophy. I believe my previous post can be confusing because it does not distinguish between my meta-ethical position and my normative position.
Based on what I have read, my meta-ethical position is certainly cognitivist, but likely anti-realist. From what I have read, I believe it is a form of what wikipedia calls "Individualist Ethical Subjectivism". Basically this is a fancy way of saying what I noted in my last post, which is that each individual has a unique moral framework, based on their genetics and experiences. All of these individual views are equally valid and equally "right", with two exceptions:
1. The individual's moral framework is not internally consistent or not rational. Any valid individual morality must be reasonably consistent and rational. I understand that the vast majority of people (including me) have not examined their own beliefs closely enough to be sure that no inconsistencies exist, but I believe a person who has a very well-thought-out framework can safely say that their moral framework is more valid than someone whose morality is riddled with inconsistency. I admit there is a subjective dividing line here.
2. The moral framework is based on an incorrect understanding of mind-independent facts. This, I believe, is where moral progress comes from. I believe the moral framework of the average person today can be said to be more valid than that of a person from the past simply because we have greater general knowledge. Human sacrifice, for example, was born out of an incorrect knowledge of nature. The Aztecs genuinely thought that human sacrifice was fundamental to ensuring the survival of their society, and thus moral. We now know that to be an empirical falsehood; many societies have been very successful without human sacrifice. I therefore think that we have some justification to say that our morality is more "right" than theirs. I also think that it is very likely that future humans, with a better understanding of the universe, will have some justification in claiming to be morally superior to us.
As for my normative position, I think the closest philosophical position to mine is something called Preference Utilitarianism, which basically says the moral action is the one that leads to the greatest "good," where "good" is defined as the satisfaction of each person's (presumably each stakeholder's) individual preferences or desires. This is close to what I talk about in my previous post, with a couple important differences. It seems that a situation could arise where someone could do something contrary to their own preferences or desires, because they consider it moral.
For example, take the case of stealing. I would imagine there are cases where stealing would greatly satisfy the "preferences and desires" of the thief, and would not substantially damage the "preferences and desires" of any other stakeholder. Under Preference Utilitarianism, it would seem like the moral action would be to steal the item. However, in my normative view, that stealing is unlikely to be morally non-zero sum (unless both the thief and the victim consider stealing to be morally acceptable) and would certainly violate the freely established moral consensus of Canada, where stealing is held to be wrong in most cases.
The second difference is the inclusion of non-zero sumness itself. I believe that win-wins are inherently better than win-lose scenarios. Consider the difference between two choices in a moral dilemma with two stakeholders. In Choice A, the outcome is morally satisfactory to both stakeholders, but results in a net change in "preferences or desires" of say, 10 on a hypothetical numeric scale. In Choice B, the individual morality of one stakeholder is satisfied, but that of the other is not (the action is immoral to them). However, this scenario results in a net change of 20 on our hypothetical scale. The Preference Utilitarian and I would come to different conclusions.
Having (hopefully) fleshed out some of my ideas and been more clear about the philosophical positions I hold, I'd like to end with my answers or thoughts about some of the specific questions that came up in my debate with Trent. I don't pretend that there won't be inconsistiencies, and I certainly don't have all the answers. However, I feel obligated to do my best.
1. Moral Wikiality
There is something troubling about morality set by consensus. What about a society consisting entirely of child abusers? If the freely established moral consensus is that this is acceptable, does that make it right in the context of that society? How does this reconcile with observed feelings that that would be wrong in any scenario?
Here I think the answer comes from our good friend evolution. Basically, my argument for why Moral Wikiality is not a big problem is also the key distinction between my meta-ethical view and what is commonly referred to as cultural relativism. This is my belief that our individual moral frameworks have a genetic component. Individuals with strong negative feelings toward certain actions would find it much easier to survive and reproduce as a member of a social species. Humans with a strong aversion to murdering each other would certainly be able to work together more effectivley, and increase their survival rate.
Once humans developed agriculture and started forming larger-scale societies that frequently interacted with each other, further reinforcement of "moral universals" came from society as well as from genetics. Societal "evolution" began to reinforce cooperative behaviour, as societies that had greater cooperation, greater non-zero sumness, began to conquer and replace weaker neighbouring societies. Cultures that conditioned their children against dysfunctional behaviour like incest, child abuse and irrational violence survived, and those behaviours were strongly reinforced.
So, I believe that both genetics and cultural development have endowed humans with strong, and basically universal, opposition to certain behaviours. The society of child abusers and the society of murderers could never exist. Even societies with slaves are quickly fading, as they are outcompeted by those societies with more efficient economic frameworks.
One note, is that I do not believe that this combination of genetic and societal selection will eventually result in one perfect "universal" morality. There are plenty of moral issues that do not have a clear effect on the survival of individuals or societies. Take for example euthenasia. It is here that the most contentious issues will be found, and this is where different societies will have different approaches that must be respected.
2. What constitutes a moral action?
In a society governed by the rules I have set out in part four, how does someone know what constitutes a moral action? If the society is not free, or otherwise not representative of the true moral consensus, what guides people's actions? Is any action that conforms to the consensus & one's personal morality moral? What about the instance where people are mistaken about the consensus?
The short answer is that you never know for certain what the moral action is, you can only make your best guess. This is why freedom and strong moral discourse in a society are so key, because it improves the ability to make educated guesses. I have to think more on some of the specific scenarios above, especially in the case of people making the wrong guess. I think it is also important to reemphasize that the moral action is ideally the most non-zero sum outcome for all the stakeholders, and that the societal consensus acts (in the ideal society) as an approximation of the views of the average citizen, and as a constraining force.
Taking an action contrary to a false consensus in an unfree society is certainly not immoral in itself. Even taking action contrary to the consensus in a free society may be moral, in some cases.
3. Relations between societies
The layout of my position largely governs moral relations within a society. What about moral relations between societies? Does moral relativism imply non-interventionism? Do we have the right (or the obligation) to morally condemn actions taken in other societies that we see as immoral?
Easy answers here. My views do not imply non-interventionism at all. In fact, it may suggest the opposite in some cases.
We have the right to critique the morals of other societies, although this does not imply they are absolutely "wrong," in a mind-independent way. It simply adds to the moral discourse within both societies, and should be beneficial for that reason alone. One just must be careful to avoid "moral superiority" and fundamentalism. Both societies will benefit if they listen to what the other has to say.
4. Definition of a society
If we say that morality is based at least in part on the freely established consensus of a society, how do we define a society? Can it be argued that every society has sub-societies, and that it is therefore impossible to define the level at which a moral consensus might be established?
This argument has a point, but I think that it is logical to define a society as the broadest group that subscribes to the same "social contract" (basically the same laws and institutions). In the vast majority of cases this is the level of the state. I don't have a well-thought-through argument for why this should be the case, however.
5. Moral Progress
Are we justified in saying we are morally superior to older societies in which practices we find morally objectionable (like slavery or human sacrifice)? If so, how does this reconcile with a relativistic morality?
See Above.
6. Nature vs. Nurture and Moral Universals
Why are there certain moral rules that seem to be ubiquitous among almost all societies throughout history? Doesn't this provide evidence for moral universals?
See #1.
Hope that clears some things up. It has for me I think.
Firstly, I must reemphasize that I believe that this moral rationale applies only in the case of a purposeless universe. I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to be certain (or even fairly confident) whether or not humanity/life has an underlying purpose driving its existence, and I therefore believe it is prudent to give consideration to either eventuality. In fact, as I have previously stated, my beliefs lean slightly toward a purposeful existence of one kind or another.
The second thing I must address is my own ignorance. As I have little practical training in philosophy, I have come to realize that some of the terminology I have been using is inaccurate or incomplete from a philosophical standpoint. For example, I use the term "moral relativism" in a broader sense than the specific usage in modern philosophy. When I discuss "moral relativism" I simply mean a rejection of the metaphysical thesis (the truth of a moral statement is based on objective moral facts,which are mind-independent just like non-moral facts) but an affirmation of the semantic thesis (moral statements express propositions) and acceptance of the aletic thesis (some moral propositions are in some way true). I do not mean "cultural relativism".
The other place where I feel I have been ignorant is on the distinctions between the different branches of ethics, as defined in modern philosophy. I believe my previous post can be confusing because it does not distinguish between my meta-ethical position and my normative position.
Based on what I have read, my meta-ethical position is certainly cognitivist, but likely anti-realist. From what I have read, I believe it is a form of what wikipedia calls "Individualist Ethical Subjectivism". Basically this is a fancy way of saying what I noted in my last post, which is that each individual has a unique moral framework, based on their genetics and experiences. All of these individual views are equally valid and equally "right", with two exceptions:
1. The individual's moral framework is not internally consistent or not rational. Any valid individual morality must be reasonably consistent and rational. I understand that the vast majority of people (including me) have not examined their own beliefs closely enough to be sure that no inconsistencies exist, but I believe a person who has a very well-thought-out framework can safely say that their moral framework is more valid than someone whose morality is riddled with inconsistency. I admit there is a subjective dividing line here.
2. The moral framework is based on an incorrect understanding of mind-independent facts. This, I believe, is where moral progress comes from. I believe the moral framework of the average person today can be said to be more valid than that of a person from the past simply because we have greater general knowledge. Human sacrifice, for example, was born out of an incorrect knowledge of nature. The Aztecs genuinely thought that human sacrifice was fundamental to ensuring the survival of their society, and thus moral. We now know that to be an empirical falsehood; many societies have been very successful without human sacrifice. I therefore think that we have some justification to say that our morality is more "right" than theirs. I also think that it is very likely that future humans, with a better understanding of the universe, will have some justification in claiming to be morally superior to us.
As for my normative position, I think the closest philosophical position to mine is something called Preference Utilitarianism, which basically says the moral action is the one that leads to the greatest "good," where "good" is defined as the satisfaction of each person's (presumably each stakeholder's) individual preferences or desires. This is close to what I talk about in my previous post, with a couple important differences. It seems that a situation could arise where someone could do something contrary to their own preferences or desires, because they consider it moral.
For example, take the case of stealing. I would imagine there are cases where stealing would greatly satisfy the "preferences and desires" of the thief, and would not substantially damage the "preferences and desires" of any other stakeholder. Under Preference Utilitarianism, it would seem like the moral action would be to steal the item. However, in my normative view, that stealing is unlikely to be morally non-zero sum (unless both the thief and the victim consider stealing to be morally acceptable) and would certainly violate the freely established moral consensus of Canada, where stealing is held to be wrong in most cases.
The second difference is the inclusion of non-zero sumness itself. I believe that win-wins are inherently better than win-lose scenarios. Consider the difference between two choices in a moral dilemma with two stakeholders. In Choice A, the outcome is morally satisfactory to both stakeholders, but results in a net change in "preferences or desires" of say, 10 on a hypothetical numeric scale. In Choice B, the individual morality of one stakeholder is satisfied, but that of the other is not (the action is immoral to them). However, this scenario results in a net change of 20 on our hypothetical scale. The Preference Utilitarian and I would come to different conclusions.
Having (hopefully) fleshed out some of my ideas and been more clear about the philosophical positions I hold, I'd like to end with my answers or thoughts about some of the specific questions that came up in my debate with Trent. I don't pretend that there won't be inconsistiencies, and I certainly don't have all the answers. However, I feel obligated to do my best.
1. Moral Wikiality
There is something troubling about morality set by consensus. What about a society consisting entirely of child abusers? If the freely established moral consensus is that this is acceptable, does that make it right in the context of that society? How does this reconcile with observed feelings that that would be wrong in any scenario?
Here I think the answer comes from our good friend evolution. Basically, my argument for why Moral Wikiality is not a big problem is also the key distinction between my meta-ethical view and what is commonly referred to as cultural relativism. This is my belief that our individual moral frameworks have a genetic component. Individuals with strong negative feelings toward certain actions would find it much easier to survive and reproduce as a member of a social species. Humans with a strong aversion to murdering each other would certainly be able to work together more effectivley, and increase their survival rate.
Once humans developed agriculture and started forming larger-scale societies that frequently interacted with each other, further reinforcement of "moral universals" came from society as well as from genetics. Societal "evolution" began to reinforce cooperative behaviour, as societies that had greater cooperation, greater non-zero sumness, began to conquer and replace weaker neighbouring societies. Cultures that conditioned their children against dysfunctional behaviour like incest, child abuse and irrational violence survived, and those behaviours were strongly reinforced.
So, I believe that both genetics and cultural development have endowed humans with strong, and basically universal, opposition to certain behaviours. The society of child abusers and the society of murderers could never exist. Even societies with slaves are quickly fading, as they are outcompeted by those societies with more efficient economic frameworks.
One note, is that I do not believe that this combination of genetic and societal selection will eventually result in one perfect "universal" morality. There are plenty of moral issues that do not have a clear effect on the survival of individuals or societies. Take for example euthenasia. It is here that the most contentious issues will be found, and this is where different societies will have different approaches that must be respected.
2. What constitutes a moral action?
In a society governed by the rules I have set out in part four, how does someone know what constitutes a moral action? If the society is not free, or otherwise not representative of the true moral consensus, what guides people's actions? Is any action that conforms to the consensus & one's personal morality moral? What about the instance where people are mistaken about the consensus?
The short answer is that you never know for certain what the moral action is, you can only make your best guess. This is why freedom and strong moral discourse in a society are so key, because it improves the ability to make educated guesses. I have to think more on some of the specific scenarios above, especially in the case of people making the wrong guess. I think it is also important to reemphasize that the moral action is ideally the most non-zero sum outcome for all the stakeholders, and that the societal consensus acts (in the ideal society) as an approximation of the views of the average citizen, and as a constraining force.
Taking an action contrary to a false consensus in an unfree society is certainly not immoral in itself. Even taking action contrary to the consensus in a free society may be moral, in some cases.
3. Relations between societies
The layout of my position largely governs moral relations within a society. What about moral relations between societies? Does moral relativism imply non-interventionism? Do we have the right (or the obligation) to morally condemn actions taken in other societies that we see as immoral?
Easy answers here. My views do not imply non-interventionism at all. In fact, it may suggest the opposite in some cases.
We have the right to critique the morals of other societies, although this does not imply they are absolutely "wrong," in a mind-independent way. It simply adds to the moral discourse within both societies, and should be beneficial for that reason alone. One just must be careful to avoid "moral superiority" and fundamentalism. Both societies will benefit if they listen to what the other has to say.
4. Definition of a society
If we say that morality is based at least in part on the freely established consensus of a society, how do we define a society? Can it be argued that every society has sub-societies, and that it is therefore impossible to define the level at which a moral consensus might be established?
This argument has a point, but I think that it is logical to define a society as the broadest group that subscribes to the same "social contract" (basically the same laws and institutions). In the vast majority of cases this is the level of the state. I don't have a well-thought-through argument for why this should be the case, however.
5. Moral Progress
Are we justified in saying we are morally superior to older societies in which practices we find morally objectionable (like slavery or human sacrifice)? If so, how does this reconcile with a relativistic morality?
See Above.
6. Nature vs. Nurture and Moral Universals
Why are there certain moral rules that seem to be ubiquitous among almost all societies throughout history? Doesn't this provide evidence for moral universals?
See #1.
Hope that clears some things up. It has for me I think.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Economist's Tale (4 of 5)
Say that we decide the assumptions of the prophet are erroneous, and instead decide to accept the opposing set of theories. We are then left with two choices:
1. A concurrent multiverse, encompassing a vast number of universes with different & random physical laws.
2. An underlying unity in physics that mandates the values of the parameters and physical laws that we observe.
These views suggest, in opposition to the others, that life, and consciousness, are simply an accident of the universe, generated in the same way as any of the other complex phenomena that we observe. There is no meaning to our existence, no purpose for us to fulfill, and little room for the existence of God.
If we accept that this is the case, then the next question logically becomes this: If we have no purpose to fulfill, how can we decide how to conduct our existence?
If we are committed to acting in a rational and consistent way, there are three schools of thought as to the actions people should take.
1. Consequentialism- People should act based on how the consequences of an act conform to some principle or goal
2. Deontology- People should act based on how the nature of the act itself conforms to some principle
3. Virtue Ethics- People should act based on how the action affects the actor in relation to some principle or goal, usually either fulfillment of potential or relevance to the actor's comparative advantages
Within each of these categories, there are many, many options. Take consequentialism, for example. Philosophers have struggled to identify a goal for consequentialists to pursue, or even a concise set of goals. Happiness, wealth, survival or power for oneself have all been suggested.
1. A concurrent multiverse, encompassing a vast number of universes with different & random physical laws.
2. An underlying unity in physics that mandates the values of the parameters and physical laws that we observe.
These views suggest, in opposition to the others, that life, and consciousness, are simply an accident of the universe, generated in the same way as any of the other complex phenomena that we observe. There is no meaning to our existence, no purpose for us to fulfill, and little room for the existence of God.
If we accept that this is the case, then the next question logically becomes this: If we have no purpose to fulfill, how can we decide how to conduct our existence?
If we are committed to acting in a rational and consistent way, there are three schools of thought as to the actions people should take.
1. Consequentialism- People should act based on how the consequences of an act conform to some principle or goal
2. Deontology- People should act based on how the nature of the act itself conforms to some principle
3. Virtue Ethics- People should act based on how the action affects the actor in relation to some principle or goal, usually either fulfillment of potential or relevance to the actor's comparative advantages
Within each of these categories, there are many, many options. Take consequentialism, for example. Philosophers have struggled to identify a goal for consequentialists to pursue, or even a concise set of goals. Happiness, wealth, survival or power for oneself have all been suggested.
Also proposed have been a number of societal goals, rather than individual ones. For example, one might strive to maximize the happiness of society, rather than his own happiness.The question that provides the key to this whole mess, however, often gets lost in the shuffle. One should start by asking whether it is reasonable to assume that there is an overriding ethical principle or set of principles. Is it reasonable to assume there is a single, defined way that people should behave?
I would answer in the negative for the following reasons:
1. People have different ideas about what the ideal world looks like. I think that an ethical view necessarily implies a view of the ideal world. For example, a consequentialist that believes in maximization of personal happiness implies that he believes his ideal world to be one where he is always happy. In contrast, a collectivist virtue ethicist would implicitly have an ideal world where everyone reached their full potential. Since it is quite obvious that different people have different ideas about the ideal state of the world, I think it is unreasonable to assume that they should have the same ethical view.
2. There is no evidence to show there is any one set of universal moral standards. People often say that religion provides this universality, but any cursory examination of religion (especially Abrahamic religion) shows the "universal" moral code to either be treated extremely selectively according to the culture of the time period (as in mainstream Christianity) or be extremely deviant from mainstream beliefs (as in fundamentalist Christianity).
3. The fact that after at least 2500 years of scholarly debate, we are still no closer to any sort of consensus than we were in the days of Socrates, probably means that there is no universal morality to discover. Unlike the advancement of science (say development of a theory of quantum gravity), a universal moral code does not seem likely to emerge with more or better information, due to the nature of moral questions as opposed to scientific ones. On a practical note, even if such consensus were possible among philosophers, it would be next to impossible to get all people to adopt it as their personal moral code.
The questions that I anticipate people will ask of this line of reasoning are as follows: if there are no moral universals, how should we decide how to live our lives? How can we be sure that our laws are just? How can we incorporate billions of people, all with different moral standards, into a coherent and fair society?
Here I believe the answer is best illustrated through an analogy with economics. Just as everyone (I believe) has a distinct moral code, based on our genetics and experiences, individuals have a unique set of consumption preferences in economics. All of these individual consumption preferences (or utility curves, if you like) are aggregated together to form the demand side of economics. Just because my individual price preferences are different that someone else's doesn't mean we can't have a fair economic system that represents the consumption preferences of all people.
In the same way, I believe that a society defines its collective morals through the aggregation of the individual moral views of all the citizens. The vast majority of individual people have value systems that postulate random murder of innocent people as immoral, just as the vast majority of people in our society have consumption preferences where they would not pay $1000 for a grapefruit. Now, certainly there are people that might pay $5 for a grapefruit, and that influences the overall price of grapefruits in the economy. Other people might only pay 10 cents for a grapefruit, say if they happen not to like them. These divergent views do not suggest that the market price of a grapefruit in our society is in any way unfair, in fact (in a truly free market), it should be the fairest possible price given all relevant views.
Now take the subject of the morality of killing. There are people in our society who believe that all killing of living things is immoral, and attempt to do as little of it as possible. There are also people (serial killers and the like) who see no moral quandary in killing any life (human or otherwise) for their own pleasure. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, where we might happily kill plants and insects, and don't necessarily mind the humane killing of lower animals either for food (like cows) or for other reasons (like rats), but we have profound doubts about the needless slaughter of higher animals like dolphins and apes, and we have to think long and hard on our views about any kind of human killing, even if there are complicating factors (see abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and even self-defense).
Not only are people in our society spread across a wide spectrum when it comes to killing, but that spectrum has an even larger standard deviation if you look back through time. There were periods of history (many!) where the wholesale slaughter of other humans was largely accepted by the most advanced societies of the time.
We cannot be so presumptuous as to think that no person is ever morally justified to kill another, nor can we say that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, always has been, and will be forever (deontological views). We cannot even say that murdering one hundred innocent people to save a thousand is always right (a consequentialist view). We can only say that there are many differing opinions on many moral issues, and that we must try to have a society that is just and fair nonetheless. The only way I see to do this is to treat morality as a relative thing, and common morality as an aggregation of the individual morality of all the members of a society.
The question then remains, how does a person conduct themselves in order to make such a morally relative society as just and fair as possible? People take comfort in absolutes, and it is pleasant to many people to believe that if they just follow a few simple ethical rules, everything will work itself out. We have seen that there is no silver bullet in that sense, no absolute truths that if followed, will always result in a utopian outcome, but there are a few things that people can take to heart and even consider to be guiding principles in a morally relativistic world.
1. People need to try their best to accept and manage diverging views. In a morally relativistic society, one of the greatest dangers is fundamentalism of any kind. If people don't realize that different moral opinions may also be valid, that is the first step toward intolerance. Steadfast attempts to prove the moral superiority of one view, or attempts to force others to change their morals to match one's own, can only lead to conflict. All people, regardless of their moral views, should preach acceptance and understanding of the moral views of others, and respect for honest differences of opinion.
2. My second principle is related to the first, and must be considered in tandem with it. Realizing that everyone has a different set of moral views is good, but we must also realize that individuals' moral frameworks are constantly being "tweaked," and may even be significantly altered through experiences, discussions and debates. Discussion and debate on moral issues is also extremely critical for establishing and maintaining a just and fair moral consensus within a society, which I will refer to as a "moral zeitgeist".
Just as it is very difficult to establish a fair price for goods and services in a command economy or any other economy where there is insufficient consumer information, it is difficult if not impossible to have a truly just society when there is not sufficient freedom to allow the creation of a moral zeitgeist that is representative of the views of all members of the society.
Although I dislike the idea of having an exception to principle #1, I am forced to conclude that in the scenario where there is moral opposition to free and open discourse (and not just political and social opposition by the elite/men), we should nonetheless be obligated to intervene, and do all in our power to promote freedom of discourse (which encompasses freedom of speech, thought, religion, assembly and freedom of the press). I believe this is essentially analogous to the need for antitrust laws in a free economic system, that is, necessary to preserve the integrity of the system itself.
I must add a disclaimer here, because the preceding paragraph could be interpreted as condoning violent action toward any unfree state, and could also imply that I believe the absence of freedom is the only justifiable reason for international military action. Neither is true. To the first assertion, I would respond that military action is not the only way to influence the expansion of freedom in a society, and should in fact be a last resort (see my post The Altar of Freedom). On the latter question, I believe that the moral zeitgeist in a society can provide other justifiable reasons for military action (such as the strong beliefs against genocide in the zeitgeist of western nations). I am only saying that all free nations have a serious obligation to advance freedom around the world.
In those societies where that freedom does exist, the most fair moral zeitgeist will come when people are engaged and active in society. People should endeavour to discuss their moral views as much as possible, and seek out different views and perspectives in order to refine their own morality. Challenging the views of others and advocating one's own beliefs (in a way consistent with principle #1) should be encouraged, as the resulting debate will be inherently valuable to both parties as well as to the society.
3. The third thing that people need to consider in a morally relativistic world is that they have only partial control over the moral zeitgeist of their society, and that even if an individual view conflicts with that consensus, there must be an understanding that it is a consensus. Just as all people must pay the market price for goods, or live with the consequences of doing otherwise, those people who choose to act against the established morals of their society must face a different set of consequences. One of the attacks most often levelled against moral relativism is that we have no right to apply consequences in such a world. I strongly disagree, and believe that it essentially does not matter whether a given action is always wrong, if it is wrong according to the freely established consensus of a society, the perpetrator must live with the consequences of his/her violation.
4. The fourth and final principle I would advocate is similar to one I have previously advocated on an economic and social basis. I have previously argued in favour of Robert Wright's nonzero hypothesis, which argues that societies compete and evolve based on their level of nonzero-sum interactions. The most successful societies, he argues, are those that have the highest proportion of non-zero sum interaction.
I would take the same argument and apply it to systems of moral interaction. In a morally relativistic world, the most successful moral systems are going to be those that are morally nonzero-sum. What I mean by this is that people facing moral dilemmas in any society are often going to have a number of (personally) morally acceptable choices. Especially in situations where a moral dilemma involves others, the nonzero hypothesis would advocate taking into account not only one's own morality, but the morality of other stakeholders (or your best guesses about their morality, based on personal experience and knowledge of the prevailing zeitgeist). The best choice would be the one that satisfies your individual morality, and also creates the largest number of moral win-win scenarios.
How do we do this? How do we create tolerance and understanding, while at the same time vigorously promote debate and discussion? How do we decide what consequences are appropriate for those that do not accept the moral consensus? How do we promote nonzero-summness? The answers to the former questions lies in Wright's answer to the latter.
Wright shows in detail that increases in non-zero sum interaction are based on two things, communication and trust. I will leave that particular explanation in his capable hands, but I will expand it to cover my other proposals.In terms of promoting tolerance and understanding, both communication and trust are vitally important.
Improved communication allows people to discover far more information about other people who may be geographically or culturally different, and to obtain far more information about various moral theories and systems.
Trust helps people let down their guard and discover things that may be unfamiliar to them. Trust that other people are going to be reasonable and accepting of different views also promotes mutual understanding and exchange. Both communication and trust help people see others as "someone like me" rather than the proverbial "other", which is something Wright discusses extensively in his book.
The advantages of communication and trust in promoting open debate and enabling gradual changes to the moral zeitgeist are self evident and cannot be overstated. Establishing fair consequences and making sure everyone understands those conseqences is also vastly easier in a communicating, trusting, nonzero-sum world.
Now I believe we have established a pragmatic and intelligent ethical system in the case where humanity is an accident of the universe, the next question lies in reconciling it with the conclusions reached in the Prophet's Tale, and combining the two worldviews into a philosophical foundation from which to justify my empirical beliefs. That daunting task awaits in the final post of the series...
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Prophet's Tale (3 of 5)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)