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
Thursday, July 19, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)