Global Warming

Yesterday I read an online article stating that Texas Governor Rick Perry, who recently added his name to those seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, had expressed doubts about Global Warming. The article, by Dina Cappiello, went on to say, “But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.”

Like many controversial issues, Global Warming is complicated by the fact that there are thoughtful, rational, intelligent people, looking at the same data, who end up on both sides of the issue. The fact that many, especially on one side of the issue, try to insist that “the debate is over” makes me lean toward the opposite side of the issue.

The “issue” of Global Warming actually involves at least four separate-but-related questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is global warming a bad thing?
3) Do the activities of humans have a significant effect on global warming?
4) IF global warming is occurring, AND if it is a bad thing, is there anything humans can do to significantly change the situation?

The answers to each of these questions have a dramatic impact on the other questions. However, I do not believe ANY of these four questions have been adequately answered. Number two is the least scientific of the four questions, and therefore is the hardest to answer objectively. I accept the idea that significant global warming would cause a rise in ocean levels, which would in turn lead to flooding of coastal areas -- and since these coastal areas are often densely populated by humans, perhaps this can be labeled a “bad thing” since cities would be lost and people would be driven from their homes. However, if this loss of homes were offset by, for instance, an increase in the world’s food supply, or even an increase in the amount of habitable land on earth (as regions like Siberia and Greenland became more temperate), then perhaps global warming would not be a clear-cut “bad thing”.

Global warming has become highly politicized, which interferes with finding honest, objective answers to the various questions. It has been established that on at least one occasion proponents of one side of the issue deliberately falsified data to support their position. I would not be surprised to learn that proponents of both sides had done this, and probably more than once. We SHOULD attempt to answer factual issues factually -- though the “facts” of global warming are complicated by various factors, including the slow time scale of global climate trends.

When a scientific issue become so politicized that it interferes with the scientific study of the issue, we should all be ashamed.

Truth is complicated.

Karate Kid

Though it has been many years since I saw it, I enjoyed the original version of the movie “The Karate Kid”.

SPOILER ALERT: What I am about to write gives away elements of the movie that would be better experienced by viewing the movie without reading about them first. I will do my best to avoid revealing the plot of the movie, or even many details, but I cannot proceed without giving certain things away.

Many of the things I enjoy about the movie involve a student and a teacher. The student, who wishes to acquire a set of physical skills, often disagrees with the teacher, who insists on imparting wisdom along with the physical skills.

Early in their relationship, the teacher orders the student to perform various repetitive tasks, seemingly unrelated to the student’s education. Later, we learn that each of the repetitive tasks was chosen specifically to help the student acquire the physical skills he was seeking.

This brings up the crucial point that I LOVE about the movie. The student, since he IS the “student”, does not clearly comprehend WHAT it is that he needs to learn, or how to learn it. This is a central point of great teacher/student relationships. IF the teacher knows things that the student does NOT know, then this gives the teacher extra insights that the student does not possess. For a student to assume that THEY know the things they need to learn, and the best way to learn them, contradicts the entire teacher/student notion.

I hasten to admit that I am speaking in philosophical, ideal terms, and the truth of the “real world” is more complicated. In the real world, teachers are not always wiser or more insightful than the students, and sometimes they do NOT know what it is that the student needs to learn, or the best way for the student to learn them. Still, a wise student should not rule out the possibility that the teacher possesses this extra insight.

I will close with one of my favorite quotes, not because it is particularly relevant, but because it is one of my favorite quotes -- sometimes identified as a Buddhist proverb:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”

Truth is complicated.

Activism

"Activism" is one of those terms that is commonly used but controversial to define. Several online sources cite the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (2000) -- "The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause."

It is an interesting area of fiction to speculate what would have happened if some detail of the past were to be changed. What if the other side had won a war? What if someone who died had lived longer, or what if someone had died earlier than they did? These might be "big" changes, but changing any slight detail might result in a completely different world. There are science fiction stories that deal with the subject of beings traveling back in time, and changing their own futures.

I may seem to have strayed off topic -- I started off discussing activism, then jumped to the idea of changing the future by changing the past. My point is that no one can ever accurately state what WOULD have happened if things had happened differently than precisely the way they DID happen. This leads to the idea that I cannot prove or adequately support my current beliefs on activism.

Still, my current opinion is that activism often, or usually, produces the opposite of desired results. That is, I believe that anti-war protesters often lengthen wars, pro-environmental activists often lead to increased environmental destruction, and activists fighting for social change often delay or prevent their desired change. As I have already acknowledged, without being able to go back and forth in time and change variables, there is no way to prove or disprove this idea.

Even if it is true that activism usually produces the opposite of the desired results, this is not to say activism is totally wrong or bad. There may be a valid role in simply giving the activists an outlet for their strong feelings, the need to "do SOMETHING". Still, I would ask the activist whether he or she is truly certain that their actions will serve to further their goals, or whether they may just be fulfilling their own need to take some sort of direct action.

There are some interesting, if sometimes questionable, overlaps between physics and human interaction. A well-known principle of physics states that "Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction." While we may debate whether this is strictly true in all circumstances, there are certainly cases in which it seems to apply to human interaction. I personally have encountered situations in which I had no strong opinions on a topic until I encountered a person who held strong opinions -- and I ended up feeling strongly that the person was WRONG. The person succeeded in changing me from having no opinion to having a strong opinion, but it was opposite of their desired result.

This is especially a problem when using "direct, often confrontational action". Many onlookers will be repelled simply by the fact that the action is direct and confrontational, regardless of the merits of the cause. Sadly, this can hinder communication, leading to an ever-widening gulf between two positions that might not have been that far apart to begin with.

A clear example involves some of the actions taken by the animal-advocacy group, PETA. Please note that I am stating neither my support for nor my opposition to PETA's agenda. In fact I have profoundly mixed feelings regarding PETA, due at least partly to their tactics. For instance, there have been occasions when young people were subjected to a "pie in the face" for appearing to promote an industry that PETA was opposed to, such as a "pork queen". Publicly assaulting a high school girl on the stage at a county fair MAY make the local or even national news, but I question whether it will advance PETA's agenda of having fewer people consume pork -- AND I submit that it may engender sympathy for the girl and lead to LESS sympathy for the cause of animal rights.

While I can offer instances that seem to support my belief that activism often or usually produces the opposite of the desired results, I repeat that I cannot prove this idea, and I do not believe it can ever be proven or dis-proven.

Activists, almost by definition, have strong feelings about the causes in which they are active, and would probably view my opinion with strong hostility. If an activist wished to engage me in a debate, they might cite instances in which high-profile activism seemed to advance the activists goals. For example, there have been some famous strikes that are credited with leading to changes sought by the strikers. I have two responses. First, I am willing to stipulate that SOMETIMES activism might be effective in accomplishing the activists goal (though I am not convinced). Secondly, I have questions about "the big picture". Activism may win the battle but lose or at least delay winning the war. An example is "women's suffrage". Without activism, it might have taken longer for American women to have gained the right to vote. Without activism, American women might have more quickly gained equal status in the workplace. I realize that these statements may be viewed as highly inflammatory.

Then there is the matter of degree, or the question of what each person calls "activism". One person may consider it to be "activism" to refuse to eat a certain species of fish, while another might scoff at calling this "activism", and instead insist on physically attacking the fishing boats. The person who physically attacks the fishing boats may accomplish more in both directions, both attracting people to their cause and repelling them from it.

Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the idea of "doing SOMETHING". Perhaps it is more important for the activist to take some sort of action than for the activist to further their stated goal. I suspect that there are times when this is absolutely the case. After all, at the end of the day, you have to live with your opinion of yourself, and you can probably never know for certain whether you are truly furthering your own stated goals.

Truth is complicated.

Minority Rules

I have previously written that Democracy is often summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme. I also wrote that the real challenge for the USA (which I now realize is a “republic” rather than a “democracy”) is protecting the minority from the unbridled expression of the will of the majority.

Recently, the world has been swept with news of protests and demonstrations. Abroad, notable demonstrations have taken place in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, along with various other countries. In the United States, the most publicized demonstrations have taken place in Wisconsin and Ohio. In the United States, demonstrators are to a certain extent protected by Federal law -- though there are still limits as to what is allowed. In the rest of the world, some of these demonstrators have been killed.

With demonstrations, protests, and similar gatherings, there is no way to clearly know whether you are dealing with the “majority” or the “minority” -- though probably MOST demonstrations and protests, at least in the USA, involve less than half the population, or even less than half the voting population, so in some sense would be considered the “minority”. SOMETIMES there are demonstrations and protests by people specifically opposed to the outcome of a vote that has already taken place. In this case, I would say the protesters almost certainly must be labeled the “minority” (unless there are allegations of actual fraud in the vote).

In the case of people demonstrating against the outcome of a fair, valid vote that has already taken place, the demonstrators (the “minority”) can be viewed as seeking to impose THEIR will upon the “majority”, who have already voted against the demonstrators. This is complicated and troubling.

One problem lies with the fact that demonstrators often seem to believe their passion and/or their numbers and/or their volume are an indication of the correctness of their position. I see little evidence that this is true. This is not to say that loud, passionate demonstrators are incorrect -- I just fail to see any relationship between passion and “correctness” or “goodness”. Passionately-supported ideas are not necessarily “good” ideas, just as the majority is not necessarily “right”.

Still, to a certain extent, our society defines “right” and “wrong”, at least in terms of political issues, according to the will of the majority, within the limits of protecting the minority. Whatever or whomever wins the election is “right”. If I had it in my power to secretly change the results of an election, so that all of the candidates and issues favored by ME prevailed, this would be “wrong” -- no matter HOW convinced I was that my candidates and issues were better than the OTHER candidates. (In fact, this would be an interesting personality question: “If you had it in your power to secretly change the outcome of a vote, WOULD you change it?”)

We COULD change our entire system, with questions decided by an old-fashioned “applause meter”. The candidate who gets the loudest applause “wins” the election. In a way, this is what demonstrators are advocating. It is also, in a way, the opposite of our current system, in which theoretically the quietest, weakest, poorest person has exactly the same number of votes as the loudest, strongest, richest person. (Granted, this is THEORETICAL. The loud and the strong and the rich already have greater power in making decisions in our country.)

I must emphasize that this is a complicated topic, and each situation is unique. The “majority” is not necessarily truly right. Demonstrations and protests are not always geared toward subverting the will of the majority. Often their relationship to the will of the majority is unclear, and, sometimes, they serve a valuable function. Still, there is often an element of “might makes right”, which is precisely what some demonstrators claim to be arguing AGAINST.

Truth is complicated.

Majority Rules

Far too often, Democracy is summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- meaning that a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme.

At first glance, the phrase “Majority Rules” is not a blatantly inaccurate description of how Democracy works. Theoretically, it is the majority who elects representatives -- “elected officials” -- and often it is the majority of elected officials who pass laws, among other things.

However, the real challenge of Democracy is NOT how to determine the will of the majority (via voting), but how to protect the minority from the unbridled expression of that will. If we were truly governed only by the doctrine of “Majority Rules”, then the majority could rule over the minority in any way it wished. Laws could be passed dictating that the minority had to serve the majority as slaves, or laws could be passed that the minority shall be killed. After all, “Majority Rules.” These examples may seem extreme, but they are the logical outcome of unlimited rule of the majority.

Another example: If “Majority Rules” then the Majority can vote to take money from the Minority. Just as absurd as enslaving or killing the minority. Oh ... wait a minute ... Lots of politicians, and possibly some actual voters, talk about raising taxes on “the rich”. Since “the rich” are NOT the majority, if we (the majority) WANT to take away their money, we should be able to. Majority Rules.

This is a complicated issue. In a way, most laws involve the majority imposing their will on the minority, such as the anti-jaywalkers imposing their will on the jaywalkers. In fact, the law routinely specifies that the majority can take money from jaywalkers, in the form of “fines”. Generally, however, the majority cannot take ALL of a jaywalker’s money, nor can the majority have jaywalkers killed. I honestly don’t know precisely what prevents the majority from having jaywalkers killed, or taking all their money. Somehow, something is limiting the majority.

It is my understanding that the government of the United States of America has various procedures and rules designed to limit the rule of the majority. Interestingly, some of these rules are vehemently opposed and sometimes even ridiculed.

Presidential Elections involve the “Electoral College”. Since American Presidents are elected by a vote of the “Electoral College” rather than by a direct vote of the people, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote but lose at the Electoral College level. The Electoral College serves to partially equalize the influence of fifty different states. Since most of the population is concentrated in a relatively few states, voters from those states -- the “majority” -- could impose their will (“rule”) over the voters from less-populous states, if only we did not have the Electoral College.

The United States Senate allows “filibusters” in which a minority of Senators can effectively block the majority of Senators. This is the entire POINT of filibusters. As a consequence, Senators from the majority often attempt the have the filibuster rules changed, so that they can “rule”.

I suppose our clearest protection from the Rule of the Majority is found in the Constitution. Even if the majority of voters pass a law, if a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then the law is voided. In recent years there have been various high-profile cases in which courts decided that the will of the majority was in conflict with the Constitution, including things like gun control. I suppose the Constitution is one of the factors that keeps jaywalkers from being executed.

Though it is a complicated issue, I am personally much more comfortable with Majority Rule when it involves answering some specific question that needs to be answered. For example, when two or more candidates are vying for an office, it makes perfect sense to decide via a vote of the people. I am much less comfortable with the majority deciding on rules that everyone must live by, such as “no jaywalking” or “Eat three servings of vegetables every day.” The issue of what I eat every day is NOT a question that needs to be addressed by a vote of the people, whereas the question of who shall serve as President of the United States IS a question that needs to be addressed.

I am a big fan of Democracy, but not so much of the phrase “Majority Rules”. It’s far too easy to forget about protecting the minority from the will of the majority. Perhaps a better phrase would be “Majority decides questions that need to be decided, while protecting the minority” -- but that does not roll off the tongue very well.

Truth is complicated.

LATER: At the sister site to this blog, truthiscomplicated.wordpress.com, the blogger jonolan (from “Reflections From A Murky Pond” at blog.jonolan.net) has correctly and succinctly commented that America was created as a Republic rather than a Democracy, for the reasons stated above. The entry above will continue to be valid if future readers substitute the phrase “our American systems of government” anytime the word “Democracy” appears.

I am grateful to jonolan for pointing this out, and recommend his blog!

Anyone and Everyone

It is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the people around us -- indeed, people EVERYWHERE -- share our perspective and our circumstances. Sometimes we are actually taught or encouraged to think along these lines.

In the community where I live, most people assume that everyone they deal with on a daily basis has a home, a car, a telephone (land line and/or cellular), television (generally cable), at least one bank account, and a certain amount of money available for charities and gifts. We have heard that there are “homeless” people, but in general we have no contact with “those” people. We have also heard of people who have no cars, but these people probably have some specific reason for giving up their car -- perhaps an elderly person that no longer drives. There may BE people without televisions, but they must be eccentric. Everyone has a telephone, everyone has at least one bank account, unless perhaps they are between bank accounts, and everyone has money available for charities and gifts, but some people are too cheap to part with their money.

This is just the perception. The truth, though many would find it hard to believe, is that in addition to homeless people, there are plenty of people without cars, televisions, telephones, bank accounts, or a penny to spare, and most people probably encounter such people in their day-to-day activities -- though many people would argue vehemently with me about this.

Continuing rapid “advances” in technology, and the increasing prevalence of this technology in our daily lives, provides more examples of this phenomenon. We are well on our way to believing that “everyone” has a Facebook page, and a cell phone that not only serves as a telephone but also includes a camera and provides access to the Internet. (I place the word “advances” in quotation marks because it seems to me that “advances” implies something positive, an improvement, and at this point I am unconvinced that Facebook and web-enabled camera phones are a positive development.)

Anytime we start generalizing about other people, whether it be in regard to what they believe, what they possess or have access to, what they desire, or what they can afford, we are probably making a mistake. Everyone is unique, and often in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

Often we are encouraged to think of others as essentially like ourselves. Even “the Golden Rule” (which I am NOT a fan of) specifies in its most common form that we should treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated (rather than the way that THEY would like to be treated). I suppose there is something positive about this way of thinking.

On the negative side, thinking of others as essentially like ourselves imbues them with the same priorities and the same resources that we have, and tends to hold them to the same standards that WE consider appropriate, with the same definitions of “right” and “wrong”.

Just as we are incapable of seeing ANYTHING with absolute clarity, most of what we see as intrinsically and obviously "right" or "wrong" or "proper" or "improper" is just a product of the values and priorities we have somehow acquired throughout our lives, and there is nothing intrinsic or obvious about it. For example, most present-day Americans would state that a green, well-mowed, dandelion-free lawn was "better" and even "prettier" than an unkempt yard full of dandelions. Objectively, a yard full of dandelions is probably "prettier", but we have been taught since childhood that dandelions are "weeds" rather than "flowers". I honestly find an un-mowed yard to be more attractive than a mowed one, but I have been accused of lying about this by those who believe that a well-mowed yard is clearly "better", and that everyone KNOWS a well-mowed yard is clearly better.

This is one of those ideas that we cannot overcome, closely related to the idea that we cannot be truly objective, and everything is filtered through our own perception. What is especially troubling is many people's inability to perceive/accept the idea that their values and priorities are simply their own values and priorities, and not innately correct. As with my lawn-mowing example, many people seem incapable of accepting that people could truly embrace alternate beliefs, and accuse those who disagree with them of lying or being mentally flawed.

On a related note, this concept of “group agreement” seems important to many people. When I argue with my mother -- which we do frequently -- it is always important to her to stress not only that I am wrong and that she is right, but also that EVERYONE agrees with her position, and NO ONE agrees with my position. I once told her, “Even if a nation-wide poll found that most people agreed with ME, you would still insist that EVERYONE agreed with YOU.”

She replied, “That’s not true! A nation-wide poll would never find that most people agreed with YOU!” While this true example may seem humorous or extreme, many people view the world in basically this same way: “Everyone agrees with me, and views the world the same way that I view it, and anyone who does not is peculiar, or lying about their true opinion and view.” This is compounded not only by the fact that people have a natural tendency to surround themselves with others who share their views, but also by the fact that we tend to BELIEVE we are surrounded by others who share our views -- thus reinforcing them -- even when we are NOT, and when everyone is actually unique.

Truth is complicated.

Misrepresentation

I originally wrote most of the following post over two years ago. I have been reluctant to post it for several reasons. For one thing, it is critical of President Obama. Many people are really bothered by ANY sort of criticism of President Obama, so much so that they do not really pay attention to what you have to say, and quit paying attention to anything you say after that. For another thing, it deals with the fact that anyone who voices criticism of President Obama risks being labeled a "racist". This was already apparent during the Presidential campaign, and became even worse after President Obama was elected. I had HOPED it would go away after the election, but it hasn't. That's yet another reason NOT to post this -- it deals with the 2008 Presidential election, and that was quite awhile ago. Sadly, this all still seems relevant, so here it is:

I did not vote for President Obama, but I considered it. Many of my friends, and most of my relatives, were supporters of Obama's Presidential Campaign, some of them vehemently. In the end, there was one single factor that decided the question of whether or not I would vote for Obama for President: On multiple occasions -- perhaps "routinely" -- he misrepresented the beliefs and positions of his opponents.

For me, this is a fatal flaw in a person who seeks to be the President of the United States, especially at a time when the citizens of the United States are highly polarized and deeply divided on a number of difficult issues. Under those circumstances, the best hope for uniting and moving forward lies in honest and sincere communication, and an attempt to understand our differences, rather than blatantly misrepresenting them.

There are those who would argue that misrepresenting your opposition's beliefs is simply how the game of politics is currently played, and perhaps they are right. Certainly all sides are guilty of this sin, as are most, but not all, candidates. Regardless, it remains a fact that I did not vote for President Obama primarily for that reason.

I was thinking about all this the other day as I repeatedly heard the assertion that those who now oppose President Obama are motivated primarily by racial considerations. I must acknowledge that at least officially, these charges do not come from President Obama himself. It is SUPPORTERS of President Obama who claim that those who oppose him object primarily to his race rather than his ideas or his actions. Still, in a sense, we have come full circle. I did not vote for Obama because he misrepresented the beliefs of those who opposed him, and now I am one of those whose beliefs are being misrepresented by those who support him. Rather than listen to any of my actual positions, or any of the reasons I oppose President Obama, I am simply characterized as a "racist".

It is one thing to disagree with someone's concerns. It is quite another to deny that they even HAVE concerns. What hope is there for a society where we cannot even acknowledge that those who have opposing views HAVE opposing views?