Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Why does NPR not want to post this comment? Re: Egypt's Conservative Society Further Burdens Poor Women
Awaiting approval for about an hour, so far...
News reports about the challenges faced by those who are least well-off economically would benefit from mention of the idea that natural wealth belongs to all and (some people believe) should be shared equally. If we recognize that air and water belongs to all, and if we require compensation be paid by industries when they put pollution or take resources, then corporations would have incentive to reduce pollution as a way to increase profit, and no one would live in abject poverty. If proceeds from pollution fees are combined with proceeds from fees charged against industries that take natural resources of various kinds, the total amount collected would be enough to provide everyone on Earth a base income of about $20 per day. (R. Costanza, et al; Nature, 1997)
Equal sharing of natural wealth would end extreme poverty AND would tend to moderate the swings in the cycle of economic boom and bust. [Overheating economies would be dampened by increasing environmental impact fees (assuming fees are adjusted to maintain set limits to overall impacts), while slowing economies would not shrink to a dangerously slow pace because all people will have a modest base income in the form of a natural wealth stipend. The most vital sectors of the economy would be insulated from the more damaging effects of a slowdown.]
Systemic flaws are not reported
More security for the least secure means more security for all
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Censorship at Moyers and Company
Bill Moyers' website does not show that a comment is pending (but a spam comment made at the same time as mine, more than two hours ago now, was removed within about 35 minutes or less). Disqus lists my comment as 'pending'.
My comment:
And all this is important because... a relatively small group of people (members of Congress) decides how to spend public funds. If each person had control of a small but equal fraction of the total public funds budget and were required to spend as they choose but only in support of programs that, say, 60% of the people deem to be a valuable contribution to the public good, then the question of who is elected to Congress will become a much smaller concern. (Congress as an institution would take on an advisory role if spending decisions and decisions about how much pollution to allow and how rapidly natural resources should be depleted were made by the people at large.)
As our civilization moves closer toward collapse (as we continue to deplete resources faster than we are learning to do without, and as the quality of civil society continues to erode here and abroad), people will have less and less free time and attention to devote to the latest investigation of systemic corruption and regulatory capture. (Industries that benefit from public spending will have more and more latitude within which to influence the regulatory and funding apparatus of government.
Are we ready for a paradigm shift yet?
What do we need to know that news media are not telling us?
Systemic flaws are not reported
Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
My comment:
And all this is important because... a relatively small group of people (members of Congress) decides how to spend public funds. If each person had control of a small but equal fraction of the total public funds budget and were required to spend as they choose but only in support of programs that, say, 60% of the people deem to be a valuable contribution to the public good, then the question of who is elected to Congress will become a much smaller concern. (Congress as an institution would take on an advisory role if spending decisions and decisions about how much pollution to allow and how rapidly natural resources should be depleted were made by the people at large.)
As our civilization moves closer toward collapse (as we continue to deplete resources faster than we are learning to do without, and as the quality of civil society continues to erode here and abroad), people will have less and less free time and attention to devote to the latest investigation of systemic corruption and regulatory capture. (Industries that benefit from public spending will have more and more latitude within which to influence the regulatory and funding apparatus of government.
Are we ready for a paradigm shift yet?
What do we need to know that news media are not telling us?
Systemic flaws are not reported
Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Pro-Russian Separatists Block Access to MH17 Crash Site - Comment deleted
Flight MH17 report on NPR
I suggested that the nation-state had outlived its usefulness. Someone shot back that a global government would necessarily be more oppressive.
If someone replies to my comment, I should be able to answer that reply. Yet this was deleted by NPR...
Throughout human history, the scale of human organization, including the geographical extent of governments, has reflected the distance across which people could easily communicate and travel within a few days or a week or so. The test of whether a government operates within appropriate limits while also carrying out the responsibilities of an effective government depends not on its size so much as on whether it and the people who give it material support and allegiance recognize appropriate limits to its power... and also whether there is recognition of the full extent of its basic responsibilities; that is, do the people recognize the areas where government must act.
I think that governments ought not initiate force or coercion against peaceful people engaged in private action in private spaces. We do not have authority as individuals to dictate private behavior of others. We cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. When citizens recognize this limit to government authority, we will refrain from voting for politicians who would violate this basic principle. We will not give allegiance to governments that initiate force or coercion against peaceful people. It is this principle, rather than an arbitrary limit to the scale of organization, that will protect us from oppressive governments. (I have heard of cases where the federal government has arrested and prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated the rights of citizens. The size of the government does not prevent it from doing the wrong thing, nor does it ensure that it will do the right thing. The vigilance and engagement of the people is what does that.)
Governments can regulate public behavior. Governments can require that those who cause problems for others pay some compensation to those who are harmed. In the case of putting pollution or taking natural resources in pursuit of profit, the detrimental impact is felt by all. Payment can be required as compensation for the lost opportunity resulting from that taking or adverse impact. (If there will be overall limits imposed, then, to the extent that one actor takes some of the available resources or puts some fraction of the total amount of pollution to be allowed, others will have to refrain from taking, so as to keep overall impacts within the agreed-upon limits. So, any taking of resources or putting of pollution by one actor necessarily diminishes opportunities for others to do likewise. Payments made by industries when they take or degrade natural wealth could be shared equally among all the world's people. The idea that natural wealth is to be shared among all people would be manifest in reality. The fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of natural wealth.)
Governments violate moral principle when they initiate force or coercion
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we use our moral sense
I suggested that the nation-state had outlived its usefulness. Someone shot back that a global government would necessarily be more oppressive.
If someone replies to my comment, I should be able to answer that reply. Yet this was deleted by NPR...
Throughout human history, the scale of human organization, including the geographical extent of governments, has reflected the distance across which people could easily communicate and travel within a few days or a week or so. The test of whether a government operates within appropriate limits while also carrying out the responsibilities of an effective government depends not on its size so much as on whether it and the people who give it material support and allegiance recognize appropriate limits to its power... and also whether there is recognition of the full extent of its basic responsibilities; that is, do the people recognize the areas where government must act.
I think that governments ought not initiate force or coercion against peaceful people engaged in private action in private spaces. We do not have authority as individuals to dictate private behavior of others. We cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. When citizens recognize this limit to government authority, we will refrain from voting for politicians who would violate this basic principle. We will not give allegiance to governments that initiate force or coercion against peaceful people. It is this principle, rather than an arbitrary limit to the scale of organization, that will protect us from oppressive governments. (I have heard of cases where the federal government has arrested and prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated the rights of citizens. The size of the government does not prevent it from doing the wrong thing, nor does it ensure that it will do the right thing. The vigilance and engagement of the people is what does that.)
Governments can regulate public behavior. Governments can require that those who cause problems for others pay some compensation to those who are harmed. In the case of putting pollution or taking natural resources in pursuit of profit, the detrimental impact is felt by all. Payment can be required as compensation for the lost opportunity resulting from that taking or adverse impact. (If there will be overall limits imposed, then, to the extent that one actor takes some of the available resources or puts some fraction of the total amount of pollution to be allowed, others will have to refrain from taking, so as to keep overall impacts within the agreed-upon limits. So, any taking of resources or putting of pollution by one actor necessarily diminishes opportunities for others to do likewise. Payments made by industries when they take or degrade natural wealth could be shared equally among all the world's people. The idea that natural wealth is to be shared among all people would be manifest in reality. The fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of natural wealth.)
Governments violate moral principle when they initiate force or coercion
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we use our moral sense
Nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness
Another post removed from NPR
Ukraine Accuses Rebels of Destroying Evidence at MH17 Crash Site
This is all so very sad for the families involved. Such a horrible way for these lives to be brought to an end. It is just too sad.
We should know by now, I think, that the nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness. When will we call for systems of global governance?
If we seek a democratic society wherein natural wealth is shared equally and environmental impacts are held within limits that most people feel are acceptable, it might look something like what is outlined here:
Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
Biological Model for Politics and Economics (shorter version)
Ukraine Accuses Rebels of Destroying Evidence at MH17 Crash Site
This is all so very sad for the families involved. Such a horrible way for these lives to be brought to an end. It is just too sad.
We should know by now, I think, that the nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness. When will we call for systems of global governance?
If we seek a democratic society wherein natural wealth is shared equally and environmental impacts are held within limits that most people feel are acceptable, it might look something like what is outlined here:
Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
Biological Model for Politics and Economics (shorter version)
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Unexplained deletion of comments at NPR - Moderating policy could be more transparent
Stress takes a toll on health and family
by Richard Knox and Patti Neighmond
My comment below was deleted, along with a reply I put in the thread it started.
Environmentalists and concerned citizens have complained that we are allowing a new class of neuroactive pesticides to be widely used and it is causing collapse of bee populations in many parts of the world. The industry representatives point out that the bees have mites attacking them and point to this fact as evidence that their products are not to blame. In fact, bees have always had to contend with the stress of mite infestations. If they now have to deal with mites and the added stress of neonicotinoids, the combined effect may be more than they are able to deal with.
Human beings have various stressors. Several types were mentioned in this story. When we introduce unnatural stress into this mix, the combined effect may cause breakdown.
The fact that people have no ready access to a share of natural wealth is a source of stress. It means that, absent gainful employment, they can face the prospect of becoming destitute.
Whether people have access to a paying job can depend largely on macroeconomic conditions. Not something people have any control over. Having no control or autonomy is stressful.
Many people in the world live now in abject poverty. This is most certainly an unnatural condition. (There can be acute shortages in nature, depending on season, weather and localized disasters such as a flood or drought. But chronic debilitating poverty is something belonging to civilization. Most specifically, modern civilization. (In the past, as economies slowed or civilizations collapsed, people could move elsewhere to find opportunities, to seek out better living conditions. Now the systems are linked through global networks. When one area experiences a bust or collapse, other areas will be affected. And there is no wilderness that people can flee to as the system turns to chaos.)
If we were to share natural wealth equally, then the stress of unemployment would be substantially reduced, as would the stress of being in a relatively low-paying job. People would not face the prospect of becoming destitute if they lose their job. They would still have some spending power, no matter their employment status. And, since everyone would receive their natural wealth stipend without any need to demonstrate hardship, the stress that some people feel when they are put in a position of asking for a handout would not arise.
Equal sharing of natural wealth would transform society in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Grocery stores throw away so much food. Shame on them.
Shame on us.
Why do we waste so much?
In this time of large population and limited resources it is most important that what resources we do use are used efficiently and not wasted. In this country, very large amounts of food are wasted, thrown away, because of slight blemishes, or slight variations in size, or irregular shapes, that cause 'Grade A' produce buyers to pass them over until they become noticably older, drier, less appealing than others. At this point, or at any point along the distribution line, those produce items which are noticeably less than grade 'A' can be separated from the grade 'A' and offered for sale at a grade 'B' price. There is no need and no sense in holding a bin of tomatoes, with some of them obviously past the point that they will be the first pick of a grade 'A' buyer, but still too good to throw away... there is no sense in holding those all out at a grade 'A' price, until the older items actually deterioriate to the point that they are of no value to anyone. Instead, the grade 'B' items ought to be removed from the grade 'A' pile and given a going market price, (i.e., a price that makes them go, that makes them sell).
There is no reason why those who want perfect tomatoes and unblemished squash should be allowed to dictate the same high 'Grade A' price for everybody.
Those of us who don't mind taking extra dirty potatoes or irregularly shaped carrots, and what not, can reasonably expect to be offered a price advantage that reflects the fact that our willingness to accept nutritious but less than 'perfect' food increases the overall efficiency of the food production and distribution system. Economic incentives *should* accrue to those who promote efficiency, and in a free market, they do. But, the current system is not a free market.
Perishable produce offers a particular challenge to marketers, especially in the current 'self-select' paradigm where consumers can look askance at and pass over any item with the slightest blemish. The items for sale are in a constant state of flux--in transition from fresh to decayed. The relative attractiveness of items can change daily.
Buyers will go for the large items in a produce market selling at a price per item, (rather than per net weight); some smaller items will be passed over, so that they become noticably older, drier than others, or even because they are misshapen. We allow the grocery stores, which have a large part of the responsibility to manage the produce supply, (argueably the most precious natural resource on the planet, at least from our human perspective), to throw away many, many pounds of food every day.
If the produce managers would make an effort to take out grade 'B' produce and sell it at a reduced price to interested consumers, then much of what is now thrown away could go to feed the more needy among us. It is not necessary that we all pay the same high grade 'A' price if we are not all equally concerned that our potatoes be regularly shaped and our tomatoes be completely free of blemishes.
When a store advertises that they sell "only grade 'A' produce", then we can be certain that a lot of grade 'B' and grade 'C' food is being thrown away. There is more profit for the store, evidently, in following this policy (as the system is organized now). The sad truth is that some people have been known to buy grade 'B' produce, then they take it home and eat it, (or not, as the case may be), then go to court claiming that the store sold them spoiled food that made them sick. Others take the food back later claiming that they bought it at regular price and asking for a refund because it is bad. We ought to be able to address these substantial concerns while also promoting a vital, efficient market.
I would be happy to pay a dollar for an ID card that identifies me as a member of the "Grade 'B' Buyers Club"; a group of people who have promised not to sue the store for bad product (we are each responsibile for what we put into our mouths), and promised not to seek refunds on fresh produce items.
I have been banned from stores for taking what were obviously grade 'B' items from the grade 'A' produce rack, asking for the opportunity to purchase the items at a reduced price, then, after being told that the items (which I had taken from the "For Sale" pile) could not be sold at all, and would be thrown away, I (on one occasion) defiantly ate a bruised pear, to show that it was still good inside, and (on another occasion) I took a small box that the store manager insisted must be thrown away. She indicated that if I took the box I was holding, with a few blemished and bruised items in it, that I would not be prosecuted, but that I would be banned from the store.
I wonder how many people have been banned from local grocery stores for taking items that were deemed to have no economic value. If they wish to hire the extra security to protect their policy of throwing away grade 'B' produce, and enforce the ban that they set, that is their perrogative, but if they intend to rely on the police to enforce the ban, then they may be putting an extra, unnecessary, unjustified burden on the publically supported police service. Any police officer (an expensive and valuable community resource) that is called to a grocery store to protect the trash, or to remove a 'tresspasser' is unavailable to the community for other, more pressing concerns, such as protecting against violent crime. The community may frown on this apparent mismanagement of valuable public resources.
Not that I want to promote a climate of lawlessness, but this practice of profligate squandering of resources is a shame.
My letter to HEB Food Stores:
The human population is still increasing. Human beings cut forests and invade wildlife habitat to grow food. Any time that we waste food, we have to destroy more wilderness to make up the loss. Why not sell bruised or blemished produce, grade 'B' items, at reduced price, rather than throw them away? Wasting resources means a harsher life for the next generation.
John Champagne
First published at Geocities
Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html
Friday, December 14, 2012
Why I fast - Message to a local TV newsroom
I have what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal. I think the ideas that came to me in a eureka moment would be coming to many others if there were some discussion of the topics of economic externalities (also called 'market failure') and some mention of the idea that natural wealth should be shared equitably, more or less equally. We should hear discussion of these topics in the context of news reports about the problems created by externalities, and within reports about the problems caused by the injustice of unequal sharing of natural wealth.
Externalities are relevant to any story about pollution, resource depletion, traffic congestion (a kind of resource scarcity), etc.
Sharing of natural wealth is an idea that could contribute to any discussion of or report about poverty, unemployment or disparity of wealth.
Some professors have said or endorsed the view that this proposal ... Biological Model for Politics and Economics ... would require changes in human nature and they decided that the paper they received should not be published. They have, however, repeatedly declined to say WHAT changes in human nature would be required. Nor have they said specifically what they read that caused them to believe this.
Kevin Hickey
Demetri Kantarelis
I want someone to show me a flaw in this proposal that would prevent it from working, if there is one.
OR someone show a better proposal for achieving these goals. This changed paradigm would provide the basis for a sustainable society, and it would bring an end to extreme poverty.
I am announcing a fast (68 hrs. on now), as a protest of the neglect of these topics. Also, I protest the discourtesy of these professors (Hickey and Kantarelis, at Assumption College, Massachusetts).
If ANY reporter or editor can say why continued neglect of these topics is defensible, I will end my fast.
(If interested, respond to this critique: Systemic flaws are not reported: What news media and universities are not telling us )
If the professors want to answer the questions, I will end my fast.
If ANY person can show a fatal flaw in the proposal, I will end my fast.
If ANY person points me to a better proposal for how to achieve these goals, I will end my fast.
If MANY people tell me that these goals are not important, I will end my fast.
Otherwise, I will die soon, in a most emphatic act of protest of the neglect of these topics, as explained at the link above.
My hope is that, by alerting you to this blind spot in your (and others') reporting, a change in practice will result.
Thank you.
Externalities are relevant to any story about pollution, resource depletion, traffic congestion (a kind of resource scarcity), etc.
Sharing of natural wealth is an idea that could contribute to any discussion of or report about poverty, unemployment or disparity of wealth.
Some professors have said or endorsed the view that this proposal ... Biological Model for Politics and Economics ... would require changes in human nature and they decided that the paper they received should not be published. They have, however, repeatedly declined to say WHAT changes in human nature would be required. Nor have they said specifically what they read that caused them to believe this.
Kevin Hickey
Demetri Kantarelis
I want someone to show me a flaw in this proposal that would prevent it from working, if there is one.
OR someone show a better proposal for achieving these goals. This changed paradigm would provide the basis for a sustainable society, and it would bring an end to extreme poverty.
I am announcing a fast (68 hrs. on now), as a protest of the neglect of these topics. Also, I protest the discourtesy of these professors (Hickey and Kantarelis, at Assumption College, Massachusetts).
If ANY reporter or editor can say why continued neglect of these topics is defensible, I will end my fast.
(If interested, respond to this critique: Systemic flaws are not reported: What news media and universities are not telling us )
If the professors want to answer the questions, I will end my fast.
If ANY person can show a fatal flaw in the proposal, I will end my fast.
If ANY person points me to a better proposal for how to achieve these goals, I will end my fast.
If MANY people tell me that these goals are not important, I will end my fast.
Otherwise, I will die soon, in a most emphatic act of protest of the neglect of these topics, as explained at the link above.
My hope is that, by alerting you to this blind spot in your (and others') reporting, a change in practice will result.
Thank you.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Don't get distracted
Based on a comment I put in response to a piece on the remarkable accuracy of 1980's climate projections:
Dear People, Let's agree that we will disagree. And let's resolve that we will not let that disagreement forestall the proper functioning of our political system.
Let's agree that it is a function of government to control / limit / manage rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting of various chemicals into the air or water. (Now we inject deadly poisons into the ground, in tens of thousands of 'injection wells', as a means of 'disposal'. I hope we can agree that this practice should be limited, too. Or eliminated.) Certain practices (those that impact the public or community) should not be carried to an extent that most people would say is too much. We should limit pollution and resource extraction to levels that most people feel is acceptable. Otherwise, the right of the people to define limits to levels of pollution, etc., becomes a mere assertion, an idea, not manifest in reality.
Only if we limit impacts to what people consider acceptable can we say that the right of the people to decide is being respected in practice.
We ought not allow a disagreement about the effects of human action to distract us from collectively defining overall limits to those actions.
Promote sustainability and justice through equal sharing of natural wealth:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Jul 18 2012 10:20:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Dear People, Let's agree that we will disagree. And let's resolve that we will not let that disagreement forestall the proper functioning of our political system.
Let's agree that it is a function of government to control / limit / manage rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting of various chemicals into the air or water. (Now we inject deadly poisons into the ground, in tens of thousands of 'injection wells', as a means of 'disposal'. I hope we can agree that this practice should be limited, too. Or eliminated.) Certain practices (those that impact the public or community) should not be carried to an extent that most people would say is too much. We should limit pollution and resource extraction to levels that most people feel is acceptable. Otherwise, the right of the people to define limits to levels of pollution, etc., becomes a mere assertion, an idea, not manifest in reality.
Only if we limit impacts to what people consider acceptable can we say that the right of the people to decide is being respected in practice.
We ought not allow a disagreement about the effects of human action to distract us from collectively defining overall limits to those actions.
Promote sustainability and justice through equal sharing of natural wealth:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Jul 18 2012 10:20:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
How far to go in the quest for knowledge?
Response to a comment after NPR reported that the Higgs boson search team is planning a big announcement.
Gareth Andrews: “...maybe we're not supposed/allowed to get there.“
If anyone can say why creation of very dense particles, if taken to the extreme, will not mean creation of miniature black holes, I would appreciate it.
If a miniature black hole were created, we may not know it (except, perhaps, as an otherwise unexplained loss of energy in the debris of a large hadron collision). It would not have the immediate effect of pulling everything on Earth into it, since the gravitational force would only be significant at an extremely small distance from the particle.
There have been gamma ray bursts observed with modern instruments that are of unknown origin. If some advanced civilization has already developed these particle accelerators and used them to produce black holes, then these mini black holes will likely have settled toward the center of whatever planet that unfortunate civilization inhabits. Over time, there will be interactions with other matter, and this will cause the black hole to become bigger. The effect of its gravitational field will increase, so that it will start pulling other material into it at an increasing rate. Then the whole planet is swallowed up by this manufactured black hole. The planet would be almost completely converted to gamma ray energy as it implodes.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
JoeyN wrote: If you put enough energy in a small enough region, you can create a black hole. However, if the LHC creates a black hole by colliding two protons together, that black hole will be so tiny that it will have a vanishingly small chance of swallowing even a single electron during the entire lifetime of the universe. Who's to say what other hypothetical civilizations are doing, but it's not a concern on Earth, and I don't think it's probably a viable explanation for GRBs...
@Joey N.: I read that there are some GRBs that are EITHER a pair of colliding stars VERY far away, OR an asteroid hitting a neutron star more nearby.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336531/title/Christmas_gamma-ray_burst_still_puzzles
In other words, there are GRBs of unknown energy and we cannot know their total energy unless we know their distance. In the case of these ambiguous signatures, the distance is not known. We cannot distinguish the signature of one event from the signature of another if we do not have a good estimate of the distance.
I suppose that the star-star collision at great distance and the asteroid-star collision at a relatively short distance and the imploding planet at a middle range could all have similar signatures.
Do you disagree?
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Mon Jul 02 2012 12:40:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Gareth Andrews: “...maybe we're not supposed/allowed to get there.“
If anyone can say why creation of very dense particles, if taken to the extreme, will not mean creation of miniature black holes, I would appreciate it.
If a miniature black hole were created, we may not know it (except, perhaps, as an otherwise unexplained loss of energy in the debris of a large hadron collision). It would not have the immediate effect of pulling everything on Earth into it, since the gravitational force would only be significant at an extremely small distance from the particle.
There have been gamma ray bursts observed with modern instruments that are of unknown origin. If some advanced civilization has already developed these particle accelerators and used them to produce black holes, then these mini black holes will likely have settled toward the center of whatever planet that unfortunate civilization inhabits. Over time, there will be interactions with other matter, and this will cause the black hole to become bigger. The effect of its gravitational field will increase, so that it will start pulling other material into it at an increasing rate. Then the whole planet is swallowed up by this manufactured black hole. The planet would be almost completely converted to gamma ray energy as it implodes.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
JoeyN wrote: If you put enough energy in a small enough region, you can create a black hole. However, if the LHC creates a black hole by colliding two protons together, that black hole will be so tiny that it will have a vanishingly small chance of swallowing even a single electron during the entire lifetime of the universe. Who's to say what other hypothetical civilizations are doing, but it's not a concern on Earth, and I don't think it's probably a viable explanation for GRBs...
@Joey N.: I read that there are some GRBs that are EITHER a pair of colliding stars VERY far away, OR an asteroid hitting a neutron star more nearby.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336531/title/Christmas_gamma-ray_burst_still_puzzles
In other words, there are GRBs of unknown energy and we cannot know their total energy unless we know their distance. In the case of these ambiguous signatures, the distance is not known. We cannot distinguish the signature of one event from the signature of another if we do not have a good estimate of the distance.
I suppose that the star-star collision at great distance and the asteroid-star collision at a relatively short distance and the imploding planet at a middle range could all have similar signatures.
Do you disagree?
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Mon Jul 02 2012 12:40:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Oil drilling puts climate and wildlife at risk
In response to an NPR report: Ahead of Alaska Drilling, Shell Practices Cleaning Up:
Oil spills pose a risk to whales, walruses, birds and other wildlife. This wildlife at risk is identified as food source for native villagers, with the implication being that this is why putting it at risk is relevant.
To suggest that the risk to wildlife is only important to the extent that that wildlife is food for humans shows a very narrow view, I think. This reflects an unfortunate (and strong) bias against non-human life. Something understandable, perhaps, from an evolutionary standpoint, but something that we might have hoped to overcome through compassion and intellect.
All the crustaceans, fish and other life that these whales and walruses, etc., eat are at risk of an oil spill, too. It matters whether our actions put millions or billions of other creatures at risk of serious harm or death. It matters, whether or not any villagers had plans to eat those animals.
What if natural resources were shared equally?
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Oil spills pose a risk to whales, walruses, birds and other wildlife. This wildlife at risk is identified as food source for native villagers, with the implication being that this is why putting it at risk is relevant.
To suggest that the risk to wildlife is only important to the extent that that wildlife is food for humans shows a very narrow view, I think. This reflects an unfortunate (and strong) bias against non-human life. Something understandable, perhaps, from an evolutionary standpoint, but something that we might have hoped to overcome through compassion and intellect.
All the crustaceans, fish and other life that these whales and walruses, etc., eat are at risk of an oil spill, too. It matters whether our actions put millions or billions of other creatures at risk of serious harm or death. It matters, whether or not any villagers had plans to eat those animals.
What if natural resources were shared equally?
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Saturday, June 30, 2012
In response to a story from "Meat Week" on NPR: "This Chef Loves Her 'Pig', from Nose to Tail":
James Kling wrote: "We need to become MORE connected to how our food is sourced, not LESS."
When we are aware, we can respond.
As economic beings who weigh costs and benefits of various options, we by and large consider the price of goods and services when making choices.
We SHOULD be able to see environmental impacts when we look at prices. We should see them clearly. We can know that prices reflect an appropriate measure of environmental costs when fees paid by those who take natural resources or degrade their quality or put pollution into the air, water or ground are set high enough so that these practices are not done to excess. When most people say that there is not too much pollution of whatever kind, then we know the pollution fees are high enough. When most people say we are not depleting aquifers or helium reserves or whatever other natural resource too rapidly, then we will know that resource extraction fees are high enough.
When the price of the meat or whatever that we buy includes these fees paid for environmental impacts, we become more connected to the consequences of our choices in a way that accurately informs our choice.
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
I would hope that ALL producers who want to be involved in a sustainable industry will join a call for a shift of policy toward fees on environmental impacts, as a way to motivate and reward the shift toward sustainability. Those who believe that they produce with a bit or a lot less environmental impact than their competitors should be clamoring for such a change.
Beyond concern about harm to the environment, we may wish to reduce actual harm inflicted on animals raised for food. If we love pigs, we might want to impose a monetary penalty on those who confine them in ways that clearly frustrate their natural urges and proclivities. Such a penalty would favor those in the industry who produce in ways that most people agree are humane. (I would hope that a chef who loves pigs for the intelligent and sensitive creatures that they are would support such a policy.)
All fee proceeds should go to the people. This policy change will cause increases in prices of things essential for life. We need to make the change in a way that *improves* the condition of the vast majority of the world's people, through an equal sharing of the fee proceeds, which would represent the value of natural wealth that is the birthright of all.
Fri Jun 29 2012 15:01:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Diet Choice is a Moral Choice
James Kling wrote: "We need to become MORE connected to how our food is sourced, not LESS."
When we are aware, we can respond.
As economic beings who weigh costs and benefits of various options, we by and large consider the price of goods and services when making choices.
We SHOULD be able to see environmental impacts when we look at prices. We should see them clearly. We can know that prices reflect an appropriate measure of environmental costs when fees paid by those who take natural resources or degrade their quality or put pollution into the air, water or ground are set high enough so that these practices are not done to excess. When most people say that there is not too much pollution of whatever kind, then we know the pollution fees are high enough. When most people say we are not depleting aquifers or helium reserves or whatever other natural resource too rapidly, then we will know that resource extraction fees are high enough.
When the price of the meat or whatever that we buy includes these fees paid for environmental impacts, we become more connected to the consequences of our choices in a way that accurately informs our choice.
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
I would hope that ALL producers who want to be involved in a sustainable industry will join a call for a shift of policy toward fees on environmental impacts, as a way to motivate and reward the shift toward sustainability. Those who believe that they produce with a bit or a lot less environmental impact than their competitors should be clamoring for such a change.
Beyond concern about harm to the environment, we may wish to reduce actual harm inflicted on animals raised for food. If we love pigs, we might want to impose a monetary penalty on those who confine them in ways that clearly frustrate their natural urges and proclivities. Such a penalty would favor those in the industry who produce in ways that most people agree are humane. (I would hope that a chef who loves pigs for the intelligent and sensitive creatures that they are would support such a policy.)
All fee proceeds should go to the people. This policy change will cause increases in prices of things essential for life. We need to make the change in a way that *improves* the condition of the vast majority of the world's people, through an equal sharing of the fee proceeds, which would represent the value of natural wealth that is the birthright of all.
Fri Jun 29 2012 15:01:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Diet Choice is a Moral Choice
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Access to markets in Yemen - Sharing of natural wealth in the world
A comment on a Morning Edition story about the difficulty of finding food in Yemen
also posted to the NPR ombudsman's Open Forum:
Economists know that natural resources are valuable.
Most people, with a moment's reflection, recognize that natural resources belong to all people equally.
The NPR ombudsman, if he is reading his 'Open Forum' page, knows that persistence of economic externalities means that the least well off are less well off than they would be if we were charging fees to industries that cause environmental degradation, and sharing the fee proceeds equally with all people.
Why is there no mention of the fact that natural resource wealth is shared extremely unevenly in the world we live in when reporting a story about poverty and lack of access to markets?
What if natural resources were really owned equally by all?...
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
We would end extreme poverty throughout the world. That's what.
And overall rates of using up resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water would be kept within limits that most people find acceptable.
Why is there never a public policy survey that asks the question whether we are using up resources too rapidly, or whether current emissions are within acceptable limits?
Why are these facts not noted in reporting about poverty and environmental challenges / sustainability?
Tue Jun 26 2012 08:45:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Equal sharing of natural wealth would promote justice and sustainability
also posted to the NPR ombudsman's Open Forum:
Economists know that natural resources are valuable.
Most people, with a moment's reflection, recognize that natural resources belong to all people equally.
The NPR ombudsman, if he is reading his 'Open Forum' page, knows that persistence of economic externalities means that the least well off are less well off than they would be if we were charging fees to industries that cause environmental degradation, and sharing the fee proceeds equally with all people.
Why is there no mention of the fact that natural resource wealth is shared extremely unevenly in the world we live in when reporting a story about poverty and lack of access to markets?
What if natural resources were really owned equally by all?...
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
We would end extreme poverty throughout the world. That's what.
And overall rates of using up resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water would be kept within limits that most people find acceptable.
Why is there never a public policy survey that asks the question whether we are using up resources too rapidly, or whether current emissions are within acceptable limits?
Why are these facts not noted in reporting about poverty and environmental challenges / sustainability?
Tue Jun 26 2012 08:45:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Equal sharing of natural wealth would promote justice and sustainability
Monday, May 28, 2012
Where is reporting on economic externalities and ownership of natural resources?
A comment in response to NPR's Ombudsman's request for feedback from listeners about what NPR might be missing:
Staff members at my local station say that this is a question that should be put to the ombudsman:
Why is there no reporting on the topic of economic externalities as such?
There is reporting on the consequences of (that is, the problems caused by) economic externalities, such as pollution, resource depletion, economic instability; but there is not any mention that these problems are the result of externalities.
The persistence of externalities means that the problems caused by externalities will also persist. Why no discussion of systemic flaws that underlie the most difficult challenges of our day?
We cannot expect to solve our problems if we don't even talk about their underlying causes.
Why no discussion of public property rights at they relate to questions of how rapidly we should be using limited natural resources? Why do we never see surveys that reveal whether most people feel that overall rates of resource extraction are acceptable, or too rapid, or too slow? Why do we see no surveys that show whether most people feel that pollution levels are acceptable, or too high, or are we too strict in our limits?
Do actual conditions match what people want?
Is this not a basic function of government--of a democratic government, particularly--to manage environmental impacts so that they are consistent with the will of the people at large?
Why is there no discussion of public property rights as they relate to the question of fair compensation to the owners of the resources, the people at large, when industries pollute the air and water, and thereby degrade the value of that which belongs to all?
If there are proposals that have been offered that would mean an end to extreme poverty AND a limit to humans' impact on the environment to levels that most people find acceptable, should they NOT be reported? (They are not reported.) Why not?
Which are among the best of such proposals? Shouldn't we be examining and comparing their relative merits and demerits?
Equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a sustainable and more just civilization (slower depletion of resources (or no actual depletion for renewable resources) AND an end to extreme poverty throughout the world):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
What is not reported:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-do-we-need-to-know-that-news-media.html
Mon May 28 2012 06:51:29 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Thursday, May 24, 2012
We are our own worst enemy - (lack of) attention to moral precepts puts us all in jeopardy
Adapted from a comment to NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog: On Alien Intelligence, The Supernatural and Divinity
tomlet said: "But we're one of our greatest threats to continued existence..."
I think it is our departure from our basic moral precepts that endangers the health of the environment that sustains us, and that endangers, also, our communities and society.
If moral precepts are a kind of natural law, then our neglect of a whole category of human rights called 'public property rights' constitutes a disregard of natural law...
An inattention to natural law will always bring adverse consequences, as when a person makes a wrong step while on a ladder and suffers a fall as a result. There was a momentary inattention to the law of gravity, which results in a mishap.
The idea that public property rights should be respected reflects a moral precept that says that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared equally. By neglecting or giving scant attention to this moral precept (this natural law), we perpetuate extreme poverty as a persistent condition for millions of people across the world. This makes for a less just and less stable society.
Neglect of public property rights means depletion of the planet's resources and degradation of natural systems, to the detriment of future generations and the larger community of life.
Respect of public property rights implies some sort of payment to the people by corporations when they take resources or put pollution. This would mean, then, that pursuit of profit (attempts to reduce operating costs) will mean reduced environmental impact. Normal operation of the corporation in the form of profit-seeking behavior is no longer at cross-purposes to society at large. What's good for the corporation is good for the environment, and vice-versa.
Collapse of civilization will follow neglect of natural law.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
tomlet said: "But we're one of our greatest threats to continued existence..."
I think it is our departure from our basic moral precepts that endangers the health of the environment that sustains us, and that endangers, also, our communities and society.
If moral precepts are a kind of natural law, then our neglect of a whole category of human rights called 'public property rights' constitutes a disregard of natural law...
An inattention to natural law will always bring adverse consequences, as when a person makes a wrong step while on a ladder and suffers a fall as a result. There was a momentary inattention to the law of gravity, which results in a mishap.
The idea that public property rights should be respected reflects a moral precept that says that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared equally. By neglecting or giving scant attention to this moral precept (this natural law), we perpetuate extreme poverty as a persistent condition for millions of people across the world. This makes for a less just and less stable society.
Neglect of public property rights means depletion of the planet's resources and degradation of natural systems, to the detriment of future generations and the larger community of life.
Respect of public property rights implies some sort of payment to the people by corporations when they take resources or put pollution. This would mean, then, that pursuit of profit (attempts to reduce operating costs) will mean reduced environmental impact. Normal operation of the corporation in the form of profit-seeking behavior is no longer at cross-purposes to society at large. What's good for the corporation is good for the environment, and vice-versa.
Collapse of civilization will follow neglect of natural law.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Gas extraction today destroys future options
Comment to the Diane Rehm Show about hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale:
The method of fracking breaks up the rock formations, making them permeable. They will no longer hold gas, so it leaks out.
It does not only leak out into the gas well piping. Gas leaks out to the surface in random locations in the area of drilling. Cows have died, as methane, propane or butane displaced normal atmospheric gasses on the landscape.
What technical fix, I wonder, could be applied to such a problem? (I doubt seriously that a thorough technical fix is possible, because of the nature of the problem.)
The destruction of these geological structures means the loss of natural helium storage capacity, along with depletion of gas supplies. This is a little-mentioned cost of this method of gas extraction.
Helium cannot be replaced by any other material.
Where is the public discourse that includes the idea that emissions should be kept within limits that most human beings agree are acceptable limits?
To what extent do these companies inject poisons into the ground, with the claim that they are trying to force the gas out, simply because they have nothing better to do with the poisons (which they would have to pay to dispose of, otherwise)? I understand that the EPA does not regulate these injections of chemicals into the ground.
(Do these drilling companies fund independently-managed projects that assay or survey exactly what is in the groundwater BEFORE they start operation, so that reliable benchmarks can be gotten for comparison with water quality AFTER drilling has been ongoing for some time?)
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
The method of fracking breaks up the rock formations, making them permeable. They will no longer hold gas, so it leaks out.
It does not only leak out into the gas well piping. Gas leaks out to the surface in random locations in the area of drilling. Cows have died, as methane, propane or butane displaced normal atmospheric gasses on the landscape.
What technical fix, I wonder, could be applied to such a problem? (I doubt seriously that a thorough technical fix is possible, because of the nature of the problem.)
The destruction of these geological structures means the loss of natural helium storage capacity, along with depletion of gas supplies. This is a little-mentioned cost of this method of gas extraction.
Helium cannot be replaced by any other material.
Where is the public discourse that includes the idea that emissions should be kept within limits that most human beings agree are acceptable limits?
To what extent do these companies inject poisons into the ground, with the claim that they are trying to force the gas out, simply because they have nothing better to do with the poisons (which they would have to pay to dispose of, otherwise)? I understand that the EPA does not regulate these injections of chemicals into the ground.
(Do these drilling companies fund independently-managed projects that assay or survey exactly what is in the groundwater BEFORE they start operation, so that reliable benchmarks can be gotten for comparison with water quality AFTER drilling has been ongoing for some time?)
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Satellites causing erosion of the atmosphere?
Response to Adam Frank's 13.7 blog about commercialization of the space age:
Anyone want to take a crack at explaining why, when satellites collide with air molecules, we shouldn't be concerned that they are accelerating those molecules to more-than-escape velocity and thereby causing a slow erosion of the atmosphere.
No doubt some of those molecules will collide with other molecules in the thin air and be slowed. But some may not. They may continue at that high (35,000 m.p.h.) speed and be lost to interplanetary space permanently.
Is it OK, from a public policy perspective, to cause some erosion of the atmosphere, if the rate is slow enough? Who decides?
How could different designs of satellites reduce this effect?
A cure for what ails the planet: (end to extreme poverty AND an efficient & fair means for controlling humans' impact on the environment):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Anyone want to take a crack at explaining why, when satellites collide with air molecules, we shouldn't be concerned that they are accelerating those molecules to more-than-escape velocity and thereby causing a slow erosion of the atmosphere.
No doubt some of those molecules will collide with other molecules in the thin air and be slowed. But some may not. They may continue at that high (35,000 m.p.h.) speed and be lost to interplanetary space permanently.
Is it OK, from a public policy perspective, to cause some erosion of the atmosphere, if the rate is slow enough? Who decides?
How could different designs of satellites reduce this effect?
A cure for what ails the planet: (end to extreme poverty AND an efficient & fair means for controlling humans' impact on the environment):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
DRShow: Fracking in the Marcellus Shale: Consequences
In response to a comment at the Diane Rehm Show:
Environmental problems have been blamed on capitalism. An ideologue recently told me that 'imperialism' makes corporations want to rape the planet.
Capitalism or 'imperialism' in their current form, perhaps. (I should look up 'imperialism'.)
I would say that it is the persistence of economic externalities that makes environmental degradation the more profitable option. There is nothing intrinsic to the operation of a business that makes those engaged in it want to mess up the environment. They deplete resources at faster-than-sustainable rates because it is more profitable than the alternative.
If we want conserving resources to be profitable (and we want profligate use of resources to be prohibitively expensive) we need to charge fees (or charge higher fees) to those who take, degrade or deplete natural resources. When industries are paying appropriate fees for environmental impacts, they seek to do what is good for the community (reduce impacts) in order to do what is good for themselves (reduce expenses of environmental impact fees).
Natural complex organisms are made of parts (cells) that serve their own interests by and while serving the interests of the larger organism.
Our economy, as a kind of artificial organism, can work in an analogous way. As long as externalities dominate our economy, we will be somewhat like a cancer on the Earth. But when we recognize an equal ownership of or vestment in natural resource wealth, we will start accounting for externalities and will be more like brain cells of the planet. What is best for the corporation is best for the community. What is best for the individual (vote for higher fees to be paid to citizens by industry for adverse impacts) is also best for the environment (higher fees paid leads to more effort to reduce harmful environmental impacts).
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Environmental problems have been blamed on capitalism. An ideologue recently told me that 'imperialism' makes corporations want to rape the planet.
Capitalism or 'imperialism' in their current form, perhaps. (I should look up 'imperialism'.)
I would say that it is the persistence of economic externalities that makes environmental degradation the more profitable option. There is nothing intrinsic to the operation of a business that makes those engaged in it want to mess up the environment. They deplete resources at faster-than-sustainable rates because it is more profitable than the alternative.
If we want conserving resources to be profitable (and we want profligate use of resources to be prohibitively expensive) we need to charge fees (or charge higher fees) to those who take, degrade or deplete natural resources. When industries are paying appropriate fees for environmental impacts, they seek to do what is good for the community (reduce impacts) in order to do what is good for themselves (reduce expenses of environmental impact fees).
Natural complex organisms are made of parts (cells) that serve their own interests by and while serving the interests of the larger organism.
Our economy, as a kind of artificial organism, can work in an analogous way. As long as externalities dominate our economy, we will be somewhat like a cancer on the Earth. But when we recognize an equal ownership of or vestment in natural resource wealth, we will start accounting for externalities and will be more like brain cells of the planet. What is best for the corporation is best for the community. What is best for the individual (vote for higher fees to be paid to citizens by industry for adverse impacts) is also best for the environment (higher fees paid leads to more effort to reduce harmful environmental impacts).
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Friday, May 11, 2012
A starting point for the political system: Make conditions match what the people want
A post to the NPR ombudsman's 'Open Forum':
My mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness among my fellow humans to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality (to levels of pollution and limits to rates of taking of natural resources) that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
... and for comment on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process. Yet I have seen very little comment or feedback, thus far.
My mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness among my fellow humans to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality (to levels of pollution and limits to rates of taking of natural resources) that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
... and for comment on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process. Yet I have seen very little comment or feedback, thus far.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Does probing the laws of nature put the Earth in jeopardy?
A response to a post at NPR's Cosmos and Culture blog: Physics vs. Philosophy:
Within the experimental physics community, the view is that it is OK to operate a Large Hadron Collider because, if it makes miniature black holes, they will 'evaporate'. According to present theory.
But what if theory is wrong. (It has happened before.) Then, the black hole may go into orbit around the Earth, but with part of the orbit going through the Earth. If collisions with other particles cause the orbit to decay and also cause the black hole to accrete mass, then it grows, and it finds its way more and more toward the center of the Earth, where accretion of more matter is ever more likely. So it grows. Then, when the mass is large enough, the whole Earth implodes into the black hole. Is this an inherent risk of trying to probe the laws of nature at their extreme limits?
Can we *ever* answer the question of whether the universe is cyclic, or had a beginning? Can we do it without simultaneously putting the whole Earth in jeopardy?
Recently an extreme gamma ray burst was recorded. It was not known whether it was an extremely distant star colliding with another star or a less distant asteroid crashing into a neutron star. The middle possibility (an imploding planet) was not mentioned.
The Gaia Brain blog
Tue May 08 2012 12:53:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Within the experimental physics community, the view is that it is OK to operate a Large Hadron Collider because, if it makes miniature black holes, they will 'evaporate'. According to present theory.
But what if theory is wrong. (It has happened before.) Then, the black hole may go into orbit around the Earth, but with part of the orbit going through the Earth. If collisions with other particles cause the orbit to decay and also cause the black hole to accrete mass, then it grows, and it finds its way more and more toward the center of the Earth, where accretion of more matter is ever more likely. So it grows. Then, when the mass is large enough, the whole Earth implodes into the black hole. Is this an inherent risk of trying to probe the laws of nature at their extreme limits?
Can we *ever* answer the question of whether the universe is cyclic, or had a beginning? Can we do it without simultaneously putting the whole Earth in jeopardy?
Recently an extreme gamma ray burst was recorded. It was not known whether it was an extremely distant star colliding with another star or a less distant asteroid crashing into a neutron star. The middle possibility (an imploding planet) was not mentioned.
The Gaia Brain blog
Tue May 08 2012 12:53:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Neglected houses are an adverse impact on the environment
From a comment to the NPR report: Should Banks Maintain Abandoned Properties?:
Industries that cause pollution or take natural resources should be required to pay a fee as compensation for damage done or value taken. We can find such a policy mentioned in most basic economics texts.
If we believe that natural resource wealth belongs to all, then the fee proceeds ought to go to all people.
If we believe in democratic principles, then we ought to set the fee just high enough to cause industries to put the right amount of effort into reducing environmental impacts. When most people feel that there is not too much pollution or too rapid extraction of natural resources, then we will know that the fees are set at the right amount.
Such a policy of requiring payment to the people by those who cause adverse impact on the environment could readily be applied to this problem of neglected houses adversely impacting neighborhoods. If most people feel that too many properties are being neglected, to the detriment of the community at large, we could charge a fee to those who hold neglected properties... higher fees for properties that more people point to as blighted. This will give these property owners incentive to keep up their properties and/or find renters or buyers. This will benefit the entire community.
With fee proceeds shared equally with all, no one will live in extreme poverty.
Our present system is one that has many vacant properties and many homeless people. But within this alternative paradigm, all people will have income from their shared 'natural resource wealth stipend'. More property owners will want to offer their property for rent or sale, rather than leave it vacant and risk being liable for a 'neglected properties' fee.
Societies develop ideas of property rights in part to ensure that wealth is put to productive use. Property rights were never defended by political philosophers as a way to give wealthy people a place to park their money. If we respect private property rights to the extent that we allow banks to hold dozens of vacant and neglected houses in a neighborhood, we need to also respect public property rights to allow a neighborhood community to protect itself against the adverse impact caused by a glut of vacant houses.
When those who hold property are more motivated to market their properties, low income people will be more able to find housing. The housing stock will be utilized more efficiently to house people who need shelter. Subjective experience of wealth will increase
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed May 02 2012 11:48:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Industries that cause pollution or take natural resources should be required to pay a fee as compensation for damage done or value taken. We can find such a policy mentioned in most basic economics texts.
If we believe that natural resource wealth belongs to all, then the fee proceeds ought to go to all people.
If we believe in democratic principles, then we ought to set the fee just high enough to cause industries to put the right amount of effort into reducing environmental impacts. When most people feel that there is not too much pollution or too rapid extraction of natural resources, then we will know that the fees are set at the right amount.
Such a policy of requiring payment to the people by those who cause adverse impact on the environment could readily be applied to this problem of neglected houses adversely impacting neighborhoods. If most people feel that too many properties are being neglected, to the detriment of the community at large, we could charge a fee to those who hold neglected properties... higher fees for properties that more people point to as blighted. This will give these property owners incentive to keep up their properties and/or find renters or buyers. This will benefit the entire community.
With fee proceeds shared equally with all, no one will live in extreme poverty.
Our present system is one that has many vacant properties and many homeless people. But within this alternative paradigm, all people will have income from their shared 'natural resource wealth stipend'. More property owners will want to offer their property for rent or sale, rather than leave it vacant and risk being liable for a 'neglected properties' fee.
Societies develop ideas of property rights in part to ensure that wealth is put to productive use. Property rights were never defended by political philosophers as a way to give wealthy people a place to park their money. If we respect private property rights to the extent that we allow banks to hold dozens of vacant and neglected houses in a neighborhood, we need to also respect public property rights to allow a neighborhood community to protect itself against the adverse impact caused by a glut of vacant houses.
When those who hold property are more motivated to market their properties, low income people will be more able to find housing. The housing stock will be utilized more efficiently to house people who need shelter. Subjective experience of wealth will increase
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed May 02 2012 11:48:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)