Swimming Upstream

In the global poll for the BBC World Service… 23% of those who responded – feel [Capitalism] is fatally flawed. That is the view of 43% in France, 38% in Mexico and 35% in Brazil. And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere wanting government to be more active in regulating business. It is only in Turkey that a majority want less government regulation.

Opinion about the disintegration of the Soviet Union is sharply divided. Europeans overwhelmingly say it was a good thing: 79% in Germany, 76% in Britain and 74% in France feel that way. But outside the developed West it is a different picture. Almost seven in 10 Egyptians say the end of the Soviet Union was a bad thing and views are sharply divided in India, Kenya and Indonesia.

Free market flawed, says survey, BBC News, James Robbins, November 9, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm.

Of course, there are major problems and inequities in our current system… but the questions are: why and what would be the solutions? It seems that the majority of people have made up their minds that the “why” is Capitalism and the solution is Government, without much thought.

 

Fairness and Punishment for Strangers

Using three behavioral experiments administered across 15 diverse populations, we show that market integration (measured as the percentage of purchased calories) positively covaries with fairness while community size positively covaries with punishment.

Markets, Religion, Community Size, and the Evolution of Fairness and Punishment, Henrich et al, Science Magazine, Departments of Psychology and Economics, University of British Columbia, California Institute of Technology, University of California, Davis, University of Oxford, College of DuPage, Universidad de Los Andes, University of California, Santa Barbara, Guilford College, Washington University, Florida State University, University of Colorado, Boise State University, March 19, 2010, http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Henrich%20et.%20al.%202010.pdf.

 

The Heroism of Shame

Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.

And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed.

You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.

“I can tell you,” my colleague went on, “of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.”

And the judge?

Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know.

Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it.

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, Milton Mayer, Pages 166-73, The University of Chicago Press, 1955, http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html.

 

The Greatest Amount of Private Charitable Activity in History

Milton Friedman was a famous, nobel-prize winning economist [federalreserve.gov] and he states that the 19th century saw “the greatest amount of private charitable activity in the history of the world.” This was before income taxes and the majority of government programs. He further argues that this was the period with the most humanistic charity, whereas today many people think that if the government will help the poor, the weak, etc., then they don’t have to.

INTERVIEWER: You talk about the U.S. 100 years ago and the economy, but many people would say, ah, yes, those were the days that led to robber barons.

Milton Friedman: They would say so. They were also the days that produced the independent colleges. They were also the days that produced the nonprofit hospitals. If you look back, the period of the 19th century — let’s say 1870 to 1914 — was the period of the greatest amount of private charitable activity in the history of the world: Carnegie libraries, private hospitals. It’s a very interesting exercise to go down, look in the world almanac at the list of nonprofit institutions and when they were founded. Boy Scouts, Red Cross. You go down all of the list. Those nonprofit institutions which are devoted to helping people were all founded in the 19th century, or early 20th century. The ones that were founded after 1920 and particularly after the 1930s are primarily professional organizations — associations devoted to special interests. Very few organizations devoted to helping people, like the Salvation Army or the Red Cross or what I’ve described before are founded after that.

INTERVIEWER: Why is this?

Milton Friedman: The government has taken over responsibility for it. People say why should I have to contribute to that, the government is doing that; I’m paying tax money. So what’s happened? It’s not that people have become less willing to make voluntary grants, but they’ve gone in a different direction. People now give money to museums, to art institutes, to symphony orchestras and so on, but they don’t give money to help the poor, because that’s — the government’s taken over that function. Whereas before 1914, a much larger fraction of all donations were of that kind and were of a personal kind, in which people took a personal interest. There’s an enormous amount of voluntary activity going on in this country. Charitable. But some of it is co-opted by the government, is essentially a contribution to governmental functions — like assisting in the government schools, in the inefficient government schools. And much of it goes into the kinds of other activities I’ve described, which really have a wholly different purpose — cultural, as opposed to eleemosynary.

Milton Friedman Interview, January 31, 1991, http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/fri0int-7.

 

Cephalopods

Cephalopods are a family of invertebrates including octopuses and squids. Their amazing camouflage abilities, which are faster and more complicated than chameleons, include color shifting (even though they are color blind!), changing the texture of their skin, mimicking movements of other objects, and performing animations on their body [mbl.edu, nytimes.com].

Some male cephalopods use this trick to look like females so that they can mate with females that are guarded by males. This can be enough to even cause the male to sometimes guard that spying male… Although what if the guarding male gets horny?

Underwater Digital Video, Marine Biological Laboratory, Dr. Roger Hanlon, http://www.mbl.edu/mrc/hanlon/video.html.

 

Climate Change/Global Warming

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is considered the world authority on climate change science (the “consensus”). The IPCC “does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant—as opposed to policy-prescriptive—assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change” [ipcc.ch].

The latest IPCC report in 2007 concludes: the global climate is warming, many natural systems are affected by this warming, global greenhouse gases due to human activities have grown by 70% since 1974, most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (anthropogenic effects are those caused by the activities of human beings), continued emissions will induce many changes in the 21st century that are very likely to be greater than those in the 20th century, warming could lead to altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, even if greenhouse gases were stabilized anthropogenic warming could continue for centuries, and that anthropogenic warming could lead to abrupt and irreversible effects [ipcc.ch].

The 2007 IPCC predictions for future climate change:

pdfs-global-mean-temperature-change

Two key points emerge from Figure 10.28. For the projected short-term warming (i) there is more agreement among models and methods (narrow width of the PDFs) compared to later in the century (wider PDFs), and (ii) the warming is similar across different scenarios, compared to later in the century where the choice of scenario significantly affects the projections. These conclusions are consistent with the results obtained with SCMs (Section 10.5.3).

In sum, probabilistic estimates of uncertainties for the next few decades seem robust across a variety of models and methods, while results for the end of the century depend on the assumptions made.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, Pages 808-809, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf.

When human numbers increased to a certain level and the accumulation of waste was recognised as a health or pollution problem, rules and technologies were established to manage waste disposal. A contemporary example of globally enforced regulation is the Montreal Protocol, where the international community in 1987 agreed to act on scientific evidence that certain industrial gases can lead to dangerous depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer.

In all of these cases, control was only established when there was the general acceptance in society that a continued state of non-regulation would lead to unacceptable costs. Thus, the history of humanity’s relationship with the environment shows that when society learns that a certain practice may jeopardise the well-being of its members, rules, regulations, and other strategies are established to control the offending practice.

The scientific evidence today overwhelmingly indicates that allowing the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities to continue unchecked constitutes a significant threat to the well-being and continued development of contemporary society. The knowledge that human activities are influencing the climate gives contemporary society the responsibility to act. It necessitates redefinition of humanity’s relationship with the Earth and – for the sake of the well-being of society – it requires management of those human activities that interfere with the climate. To support development of effective responses, however, this knowledge should be widely disseminated outside of the scientific community. The purpose of this report is to communicate to a broad range of audiences the research community’s most up-to-date understanding of climate change, its implications, and the actions needed to deal with it effectively.

The climate is largely controlled by the flows of heat entering and leaving the planet and the storage of heat in the various compartments of the Earth System – ocean, land, atmosphere, snow/ice. This heat ultimately comes from the sun. Only a very small amount of the heat is stored in the atmosphere (Figure 2); by far the largest amount of heat stored at the Earth’s surface is found in the ocean. The heat flux into the ocean proceeds more slowly than into the atmosphere. However, given that the ocean stores so much heat, a change in ocean temperature, which reflects a change in the amount of heat stored in the ocean, is a better indicator of change in the climate than changes in air temperature.

Figure 3 shows the trend in surface air temperature in recent decades. 2008 was comparatively cooler than the immediately preceding years, primarily because there was a minimum in the cycle of the sun’s magnetic activity (sun spot cycle) and a La Niña event in 2007/2008. Nevertheless, the long-term trend of increasing temperature is clear and the trajectory of atmospheric temperature at the Earth’s surface is proceeding within the range of IPCC projections.

The evidence that human activities are changing the fundamental conditions for life on Earth is overwhelming, and the challenges presented by these changes are daunting. Postponing action will only increase the risks to future generations. While no single meeting can transform our society to one living within the climate change boundary, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP15, to be held in December 2009 offers a unique and timely opportunity to start such a transformative journey.

Synthesis Report from Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions, Copenhagen, March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf.

temps2co2

No one argues that the Earth is not warming, but some climate scientists do argue that the warming is caused by humans (instead they argue it is natural variability with a similar period called the Medieval Warm Period which actually had beneficial effects for crop output, etc.), and others argue that governments may not be the best solution to the problem if it is a problem. Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist who formerly worked for NASA in their temperature monitoring group, summarizes this as follows (he is currently funded 100% by the government, not by private interests):

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade…

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy…

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low…

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does.

Global Warming, Dr. Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/.

Intellectual Ventures: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece

Spencer’s FAQ: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

I was a lead author of two chapters in AR2’s Working Group 3 report (1995), convening lead author in the Special Report on Regional Impacts published in 2001 (Working Group 2), contributing author of one chapter in AR3’s Working Group 1 report (2001), lead author of one chapter in AR3’s Working Group 2 report (2001), and contributing author of one chapter in AR4’s Working Group 2 report (2007).

The IPCC is a victim of its own success. Policy makers trust the IPCC reports as neutral and authoritative assessments of climate research. Therefore, people with a political agenda have tried to influence the IPCC. Such attempts were largely in vain in AR2 and AR3, but this is not true for AR4. Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research. These biases can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report.

Richard Tol’s Draft Submission to IAC IPCC Review, May 5, 2010, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/richard-tols-draft-submission-to-iac.html.

Many scientists also argue that there are many mistakes in the IPCC report and process which are politically motivated and also put into question the fact that it is a “gold standard” of scientific quality. The IPCC has admitted to some of those mistakes (e.g. Himalayan glaciers) but stands by its major conclusions. Some critiques:

 

Mahatma Gandhi on Anarchism

Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most famous pacifists in recent history. He used and encouraged mass civil disobedience to help India gain its independence from Britain in 1947.

But you will see that I am answering the question with the utmost caution, and my truth makes me admit that we might have to maintain a police force. But the police will be after our pattern, and not the British pattern. As we shall have adult suffrage, the voice of even the youngest of us will count. That is why I have said that the ideally non-violent State will be an ordered anarchy. That State will be the best governed which is governed the least.

Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, July 16, 1940 – December 27, 1940, Page 122, http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL079.PDF (http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html).

 

Example Impacts of Charitable Donations

Example impacts of various donations to Doctors Without Borders:

  • $35: Two high-energy meals a day to 200 children
  • $50: Vaccinations for 50 people against meningitis, measles, polio or other deadly epidemics
  • $70: Two basic suture kits to repair minor shrapnel wounds
  • $100: Infection-fighting antibiotics to treat nearly 40 wounded children
  • $250: A sterilization kit for syringes and needles used in mobile vaccination campaigns
  • $500: A medical kit containing basic drugs, supplies, equipment, and dressings to treat 1,500 patients for three months
  • $1000: Emergency medical supplies to aid 5,000 disaster victims for an entire month
  • $5500: An emergency health kit to care for 10,000 displaced people for three months

What Your Support Provides, Doctors Without Borders, http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/what.cfm.

According to Charity Navigator, Doctors Without Borders uses 87% of its donations toward its charity work, 11% on fundraising, and only 1% on administration:

Program Expenses: 87.3%
Administrative Expenses: 1.1%
Fundraising Expenses: 11.4%
Total Revenue: $161,446,238
Program Expenses: $133,695,129

Doctors Without Borders, USA, Charity Navigator, International : Development and Relief Services, http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3628.

 

1 Billion Dollar Moat!

Well, not quite, but… CBS news and the Times of London are reporting that the United States is planning on building a new $1 billion embassy in London, surrounded by a moat (for security)!

The United States has unveiled plans for its new $1 billion high-security embassy in London — the most expensive it has ever built.

The new embassy, on a former industrial site behind Battersea power station… surrounded by a moat, will be built.

A moat 30 metres (100ft) wide and rolling parkland will separate the building from the main road, protecting it from would-be bombers and removing the need for the blast barriers that so dismayed the people of Mayfair.

But the price puts the London embassy above the US’s most fortified missions, including the Baghdad embassy, which cost $600 million (£390 million) but required a further $100 million of work on air conditioning, and the Islamabad embassy, still under construction, which has cost more than $850 million.

US diplomats add a moat to their expenses at $1bn London embassy, The Times of London, Catherine Philp, February 24, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7038550.ece.

While millions of Americans are unemployed, the U.S. State Department is okay spending $1 billion to replace an embassy. Moral of the story? When you get into deep credit card debt, borrow more money to build a moat around your house (perhaps to protect yourself from frothing creditors?).

By the way, where’s the trebuchet?!

 

Happy Dog

Not mine, but damn this is one content dog.

Compared to: