I used to do a fair bit of backpacking, starting when I was a kid when we had these large, metal frames that you just tied everything to and it all hung off your back. When I got older the packs got better and the gear got smaller and you could fit most of your stuff inside (though the whole thing was still just nylon covering up a big metal frame). At some point I discovered the ultralight backpacking movement and the simple idea made so much sense: make everything lighter and it will be easy to carry and the experience will be better. Who could argue with that?
At first it was easy to do: replace my 7 pound heavy-duty backpack with a 3 pound midsize model. Replace my 5 pound solo tent with a 2 pound bivy sack. Lighter sleeping bag, sleeping pad, cook stove; fewer clothes and no luxury items (no books!). It didn't take much to cut my base weight in half. Backpacking became easier. I could go farther into the backcountry with less effort and enjoy myself more. But could I do even better?
I started visiting lightweight backpacking forums and reading about cutting weight as a philosophy (or religion, the way some folks talked about it). It became clear that if you really wanted to minimize your load you needed to obsess over every ounce. People talked about making their own stoves out of recycled soda cans to save a couple ounces. Cutting the handle off their toothbrushes to save half an ounce. Even removing tags from clothing which saved so little weight it couldn't be measured. I started down the path and cut a couple more pounds off my base weight in a quest for the ultimate goal: an under-10-poung base weight.
But then I realized something. I didn't actually notice much difference between a 10-pound base weight and a 12-pound base weight. If I cut the handle off my toothbrush it made brushing my teeth messy and annoying. If I cut the tags off my clothing I would save less weight than the dirt that gathered on my shoes during a day's hiking. And most importantly, if I spent all my time obsessing about weight I didn't spend my time planning and enjoying my trips.
So I started adding weight. Not much, but just the things that were important to me and made my experience more pleasurable. A real toothbrush. A stove that was easy to use and required no maintenance. A book - maybe two! I was still a lightweight backpacker but I wasn't a zealot. By making the changes that saved the most weight - the big-ticket items - I made a significant difference without too much inconvenience, but at some point the changes had very minor effects on my goal (less weight) but greatly diminished my enjoyment of the activity.
This idea can be applied in many ways but I see it as most important when discussing climate change and what we, as individuals, can do to help fight it. A lot of people obsess over small details (plastic straws and food wrappers) without considering the big-ticket items. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, start by finding out how much carbon you create in various aspects of your life - a good place to start is the UN carbon footprint calculator: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. If you're composting your food, that's great, but if you fly to Europe for a vacation you've burned through more carbon than a thousand years of composting will save. Start by reducing the largest sources of emissions: drive less (or electric), fly less, eat less meat and more local foods. Sure, shop with reusable bags and buy bulk if it works for you, but don't inconvenience yourself over ounces before you cut down on the pounds.
It's okay to release some carbon into the environment - your personal actions aren't going to destroy the world, neither are they going to save it. Do what you can, do the big things first, and realize the only effective solutions to the problem writ large need to come from large organizations (nation-states, corporations, societies), so maybe spend a little more time and effort to put people into power who will make the necessary changes there. Voting Democratic and encouraging others to do the same is a more significant contribution in the fight to stop climate change than any individual action you can take.
Thoughts on the world from a rational existentialist.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Has Feminism Gone Too Far?
To make this simple: the answer is yes. Yes, feminism has gone too far. So has diversity. And so has religious freedom, free speech, and even M&M colors. Every movement, idea, and cause goes too far for the simple reason that people are human and plentiful. Complex ideas (and even some simple ones) exists on a spectrum and in a large group there will be a range of understandings and acceptances of such ideas, so there is no single, coherent idea to measure, and even if there were there would be no perfect level that pleased everyone. Everything ends up going too far by someone's measure.
That's why most of those 'too far' articles or discussions are problematic. They're not meant to fairly evaluate or consider whether something is a good idea and useful to society - the concept of 'too far' is simply a way to discredit something you do not like. Afraid of feminism? Just throw out the most extreme example you can find and use it to smear everyone and everything associated with the term. Some random self-proclaimed feminist said she wants to kill all men - feminism has gone too far!. Don't like the Black Lives Matter movement but afraid to admit that Black lives don't matter to you? Well then, point out that some people at a BLM protest said something inappropriate and pretend that it represents the true cause and viewpoint of everyone involved. 'Too far' is a simple rhetorical trick to get people to agree with you on one thing and then make the logical jump (which actually is not reasonable at all) to your larger point.
The real question that should be asked is whether or not something is, by and large, helpful and correct, or if it is morally dubious and damaging. But that's harder. Feminism is the idea that women deserve equal rights and treatment - how do you dispute that? Diversity movements simply want a world free of racism and discrimination, but that's a good thing so how can I find a way to complain it's no longer so advantageous to be a straight, white, male? The fact that people have to resort to extreme examples in an attempt to smear a broad concept shows the weakness in their position.
So the way to answer when a headline asks if something has gone too far is to reframe their question: what are they trying to sell? Stop making simplistic assumptions and don't accept motivated reasoning as a valid logical construct. Don't impose ideological purity tests on opposing viewpoints that you can't pass with your own. There will always be someone or some application of an idea that goes beyond where it should and what we agree with, but that does not invalidate the idea itself or all the people who espouse it. Feminism is good. Diversity is good. Blue M&M's are too far!
That's why most of those 'too far' articles or discussions are problematic. They're not meant to fairly evaluate or consider whether something is a good idea and useful to society - the concept of 'too far' is simply a way to discredit something you do not like. Afraid of feminism? Just throw out the most extreme example you can find and use it to smear everyone and everything associated with the term. Some random self-proclaimed feminist said she wants to kill all men - feminism has gone too far!. Don't like the Black Lives Matter movement but afraid to admit that Black lives don't matter to you? Well then, point out that some people at a BLM protest said something inappropriate and pretend that it represents the true cause and viewpoint of everyone involved. 'Too far' is a simple rhetorical trick to get people to agree with you on one thing and then make the logical jump (which actually is not reasonable at all) to your larger point.
The real question that should be asked is whether or not something is, by and large, helpful and correct, or if it is morally dubious and damaging. But that's harder. Feminism is the idea that women deserve equal rights and treatment - how do you dispute that? Diversity movements simply want a world free of racism and discrimination, but that's a good thing so how can I find a way to complain it's no longer so advantageous to be a straight, white, male? The fact that people have to resort to extreme examples in an attempt to smear a broad concept shows the weakness in their position.
So the way to answer when a headline asks if something has gone too far is to reframe their question: what are they trying to sell? Stop making simplistic assumptions and don't accept motivated reasoning as a valid logical construct. Don't impose ideological purity tests on opposing viewpoints that you can't pass with your own. There will always be someone or some application of an idea that goes beyond where it should and what we agree with, but that does not invalidate the idea itself or all the people who espouse it. Feminism is good. Diversity is good. Blue M&M's are too far!
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
The Green in the Green New Deal is Money
Let's approach the issue of climate change in a slightly different way than usual. Let's ignore it. (OK, that's not unsual, but follow me for a bit to see where this goes) Let's look at a completely different problem and see if we can find the best way forward. Take the economy in general and the energy sector in particular. How can we save money? How can we make everything cheaper for everyone? That seems like something we should all be able to agree is a good goal.
We start with the energy sector, something that is a basic component of almost every other product in the world. Our energy sector is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and the associated technologies that run off them, and has been for a long time. This historical aspect is very important. It means the industry is well developed and technological advances and increased efficiencies have become slow and incremental, while at the same time it also means the industry is quite wealthy and naturally uses that wealth to protect its own interest. It's based on raw materials (oil, coal, and natural gas) that are limited and whose extraction necessarily becomes more difficult and expensive over time. It's an old industry that fights change has hard constraints on future savings.
Fossil fuels are not going to get much cheaper and most likely will get more expensive. If they seem cheap now, it's largely because they are heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly. The industry has used its wealth and power to get concessions from governments worldwide through cheap land costs and drilling rights to go along with lower tax rates, but that's just the start. The true subsidies for fossil fuel lie in the rest of society absorbing their externalities.
Burning fossil fuels pollutes our environment (well established) and this pollution damages health and kills people, lots of people (again, this is well established). The healthcare for the millions of people affected costs a lot. So does the lost production of the people who die. And the rest of society pays these bills instead of the companies that cause them. Other externalities include the cost of all the wars we fight over fossil fuel rich lands, both in terms of military expenditures and population upheaval.That's not even counting the damage from climate change - because we're ignoring that, right?
All these costs add up, which means the price you're paying at the pump isn't really the true price for fossil fuels. You're paying a lot more - $5.3 TRILLION a year worldwide. So if fossil fuels are really expensive, what's the alternative? Renewable energy.
In particular, solar and wind energy are relatively young industries. That means they are experiencing rapid efficiency improvements through technological gains. They also rely on natural resources which are, for practical purposes, readily at hand and infinite. They will keep getting cheaper and cheaper for the foreseeable future (and they are already price-competitive to fossil fuels for electricity generation). Ignoring climate change again, in ten years time renewables will provide cheaper power than fossil fuels, and the sooner we make the transition to electricity everywhere possible the more money we will save (don't take my word for it, read the reports from the financial sector - the people who only care about saving and making money: Citi Report; Investment Report).
And renewables don't have anywhere near as large of externality costs.We'd be saving money and saving lives by reducing pollution. We'd be reducing U.S. reliance on external sources for our energy needs. We'd be reducing the necessity of armed conflict (thereby protecting our troops) by not having to protect oil supplies. I think most of us would agree these are all good and useful things on top of all that money we would save.
So, if renewables are cheaper and better, why are we stuck in this petroleum based world? How do we, as individuals in a large society, help convert our system to the better option? Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work - can't we just let it do the job? The problem with free markets is that they only exist in theory. Every market in the real world is imperfect and regulated, so that is what we have to deal with.
We are in this situation because at one time in the past fossil fuels represented the best (cheapest) solution. The oil companies grew rich and powerful because they provided cheap energy, cheaper than any alternative, and that was just fine. But once a market is established and the players involved have both large market share (to control buyers' options) and political influence (to control regulation and subsidization), change, even for the obviously better, will be resisted by those who benefited in the past. The old guard will fight free market forces, and the only way to restore a free-market preference is to counteract the anti-free market companies.
We do that by regulation, a necessary evil to help the market function as it should. We do it by removing the subsidies from the old and dying fossil fuel industry (and making them pay for the full cost of their products). We do it by subsidizing and encouraging renewables through government investment and incentives. And to make that happen, we, as citizens, need to vote for elected officials who will implement such changes to our benefit - regardless of their reasoning.
If you want to save money, if you support free market solutions, if you want everything to be cheaper and more efficient, you need to support the Green New Deal. It doesn't matter if other supporters are a bunch of do-gooder leftists who think they're saving the planet. If global warming is a complete hoax we will only save ourselves a bunch of money. (If it's not, we'll also save millions of lives and leave a better world for our children, but that's just a perk). We just want cheap transportation, reduced energy costs, and lower health care costs. And we want it now.
We start with the energy sector, something that is a basic component of almost every other product in the world. Our energy sector is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and the associated technologies that run off them, and has been for a long time. This historical aspect is very important. It means the industry is well developed and technological advances and increased efficiencies have become slow and incremental, while at the same time it also means the industry is quite wealthy and naturally uses that wealth to protect its own interest. It's based on raw materials (oil, coal, and natural gas) that are limited and whose extraction necessarily becomes more difficult and expensive over time. It's an old industry that fights change has hard constraints on future savings.
Fossil fuels are not going to get much cheaper and most likely will get more expensive. If they seem cheap now, it's largely because they are heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly. The industry has used its wealth and power to get concessions from governments worldwide through cheap land costs and drilling rights to go along with lower tax rates, but that's just the start. The true subsidies for fossil fuel lie in the rest of society absorbing their externalities.
Burning fossil fuels pollutes our environment (well established) and this pollution damages health and kills people, lots of people (again, this is well established). The healthcare for the millions of people affected costs a lot. So does the lost production of the people who die. And the rest of society pays these bills instead of the companies that cause them. Other externalities include the cost of all the wars we fight over fossil fuel rich lands, both in terms of military expenditures and population upheaval.That's not even counting the damage from climate change - because we're ignoring that, right?
All these costs add up, which means the price you're paying at the pump isn't really the true price for fossil fuels. You're paying a lot more - $5.3 TRILLION a year worldwide. So if fossil fuels are really expensive, what's the alternative? Renewable energy.
In particular, solar and wind energy are relatively young industries. That means they are experiencing rapid efficiency improvements through technological gains. They also rely on natural resources which are, for practical purposes, readily at hand and infinite. They will keep getting cheaper and cheaper for the foreseeable future (and they are already price-competitive to fossil fuels for electricity generation). Ignoring climate change again, in ten years time renewables will provide cheaper power than fossil fuels, and the sooner we make the transition to electricity everywhere possible the more money we will save (don't take my word for it, read the reports from the financial sector - the people who only care about saving and making money: Citi Report; Investment Report).
And renewables don't have anywhere near as large of externality costs.We'd be saving money and saving lives by reducing pollution. We'd be reducing U.S. reliance on external sources for our energy needs. We'd be reducing the necessity of armed conflict (thereby protecting our troops) by not having to protect oil supplies. I think most of us would agree these are all good and useful things on top of all that money we would save.
So, if renewables are cheaper and better, why are we stuck in this petroleum based world? How do we, as individuals in a large society, help convert our system to the better option? Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work - can't we just let it do the job? The problem with free markets is that they only exist in theory. Every market in the real world is imperfect and regulated, so that is what we have to deal with.
We are in this situation because at one time in the past fossil fuels represented the best (cheapest) solution. The oil companies grew rich and powerful because they provided cheap energy, cheaper than any alternative, and that was just fine. But once a market is established and the players involved have both large market share (to control buyers' options) and political influence (to control regulation and subsidization), change, even for the obviously better, will be resisted by those who benefited in the past. The old guard will fight free market forces, and the only way to restore a free-market preference is to counteract the anti-free market companies.
We do that by regulation, a necessary evil to help the market function as it should. We do it by removing the subsidies from the old and dying fossil fuel industry (and making them pay for the full cost of their products). We do it by subsidizing and encouraging renewables through government investment and incentives. And to make that happen, we, as citizens, need to vote for elected officials who will implement such changes to our benefit - regardless of their reasoning.
If you want to save money, if you support free market solutions, if you want everything to be cheaper and more efficient, you need to support the Green New Deal. It doesn't matter if other supporters are a bunch of do-gooder leftists who think they're saving the planet. If global warming is a complete hoax we will only save ourselves a bunch of money. (If it's not, we'll also save millions of lives and leave a better world for our children, but that's just a perk). We just want cheap transportation, reduced energy costs, and lower health care costs. And we want it now.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Fight for Democracy: 2020 is the Battleground
In any sane world, one where our leaders possess the merest of morality and conscience, any one of a dozen scandals/improprieties/illegalities would have already ended the Trump presidency. The open disregard of constitutional dictates (emoluments clause) and flaunting of political norms (constant lying about anything and everything) would have brought down any Democratic politician. The known criminal violations (felony campaign violations his personal attorney admitted to, credible reports of sexual assaults he bragged about, decades of financial misdealings) would be enough for a trial for anyone other than a President who handpicked the Attorney General who decides such issues. The many forms racism (shithole countries/border invasion), the attacks on the free press, the divulging of secret intelligence to our adversaries, the embarrassing gaffs and utter ignorance in everything from foreign relations (he ‘loves’ Kim and Duterte, not to mention Putin), the economy, the government and even how to buy things in a grocery store - all worthy of invoking the 25th Amendment to replace a clearly incompetent man. But that is not our world.
We live in the world of politics where the Republicans have abandoned any rationality (climate change denial) or consistency (increasing debt to cut taxes on the wealthy) and even any semblance of trying to play a fair game (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, Citizens United). They’ve turned into a cult whose only clear purpose is to hold onto the power they’ve managed as a minority, knowing full well their tribe is shrinking and demographics will eventually overcome them. The problem is Republicans writ large, at all levels, and every single one who votes for them.
The Mueller Report was never going to solve our political problem. No amount of indictments (34 and counting) or clear evidence of wrongdoing would fix this. Our problem is the entire political party who supports an openly corrupt, probably illegal, definitely immoral Administration and it’s not an issue of illegality but of anti-democracy. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and the Senate despite winning fewer votes than the Democrats, votes representing only around a quarter of the population. When the leaders of the party (Trump, McConnell), the rank and file representatives (Nunes, Graham), and the base itself all abandon democracy to grasp desperately at any advantage regardless of cost to our institutions or their souls, the only way out is overwhelming force at the ballot box.
So if you’ve felt let down this week. Disappointed. Frustrated or uncertain. It’s understandable but it’s wrong. We should never have given our hopes to someone else, especially a lifelong Republican, a longstanding cog in the machine who was limited and controlled by the system we hoped he would bring down. We should have held onto our hope dearly and realized the only chance for success lies within ourselves. We are the People and we have the power.
So as I’ve said before, devote your anger and energy to mobilizing for elections. Give your time, money, and attention to the Democrats (at every level). Speak up when you hear anyone, anywhere peddling the racist, immoral, impractical, and just plain untrue garbage spewed by the Republicans. It’s not enough to vote. Get your neighbor to vote. Your cousin. Phone bank and get some random person in Ohio to vote. And let them why they need to vote: to save pre-existing conditions, to stop locking children up in cages, to rebuke the white supremacy that leads to events like in Christchurch. The data is very clear: an informed populace, voting their conscience and on a reasonable interpretation of policy and position, with equal turnout across the board, would lead to an overwhelming Democratic victory. We don’t need to change the world, we just more of it to engage. Carry on the fight!
Monday, March 25, 2019
Analogies: The Legality of Border Crossings
When it comes to immigration, a lot of conservatives fall back on the legality argument: they aren't against immigrants (they aren't bigots), they support legal immigration. It's the illegal immigration that's the problem. The people who break the law must be detained. They must be separated from their children. It's just the law, and we are law followers in this country. Right?
No. First, let's understand the basics. Most of the people coming into our country through the southern border are seeking asylum. The legal way to apply for asylum is to show up at the border, at a designated checkpoint, and ask for it. So all those caravans coming across Mexico are actually following the legal procedure. But then we turn them away at the checkpoints and say we're too busy to let them apply - which many folks consider illegal under international law, so we're the ones breaking the law here. Faced with no way to legally request asylum at the border, many of these people cross the border (which is technically illegal, though a misdemeanor) and turn themselves into a border patrol asking for asylum, which is perfectly legal. So we are forcing people to break a minor law, which is normally penalized by a $10 fine, in order to follow the legal pathway to asylum. So is it really the law-breaking that's the problem here?
Let's try an analogy. Let's say your child is sick or injured. You know, high fever/loss of consciousness/lots of bleeding/their-life-is-in-danger kind of trouble. What do you do? Call for help? But what if that help takes too long? What if it never comes? I bet it's the conservative men out there who would be the first to say they'd take their kid to the hospital themselves. We're doers in this country: we take action and solve our own problems.
Great! So you load your kid into your 4x4 because it's a stormy night and the roads are rough and you head for the hospital. But do you conscientiously follow the speed limit? I mean, speeding is breaking the law. But somehow I'm guessing you feel speeding would be justified in this situation. Maybe even a little 'reckless' driving if necessary to avoid downed trees or washed out gullies. You have to save your kid - f@ck the speed limit!
Okay, fair enough, but as you approach the hospital you find the Highway Patrol blocking the road. It's closed, they say. Too dangerous and crowded. Maybe try again later. Well, they are the law, so I'm sure you just sit and wait, even if you can see the road looks totally open. No!
You're the hero of this damn analogy! You do whatever it takes to save that kid. You drive around - over? - those road closed signs and you get your kid to the ER. If Johnny Law wants to stop you, you'll deal with him after your kid is safe.
Well done! You arrive at the hospital and you turn your kid over to the staff who promptly dump them in the waiting room (or a steel cage). Armed security escorts you to a cell, which you willingly accept because you broke the law. They keep you in there for weeks, without telling you what happened to your kid, and then decide you're to lose custody of your kid. I mean, you broke the law! You deserve to be permanently separated from your children. We have to follow the law, otherwise we're a nation of chaos!
If that scenario sounds ridiculous to you, ask yourself why? What does the one parent seeking asylum at the border lack that the parent driving to the hospital has? Does their nationality really matter in this situation? The color of their skin? Of course we're a nation of laws, but that's only a good thing when the law is followed by those who enforce it and its reach and punishments are proportional to the offense.
We also used to be a country of morality and compassion. We held ourselves out as a beacon of decency and opportunity. When we deny the humanity of others, when we close ourselves off and defend our unwillingness to help with absurd justifications based on technicalities, we lose who we are meant to be. Remember: the hero in the story is always the one trying to save the children. The villain always pursues their self-interest at the expense of others. Choose who you want to be.
No. First, let's understand the basics. Most of the people coming into our country through the southern border are seeking asylum. The legal way to apply for asylum is to show up at the border, at a designated checkpoint, and ask for it. So all those caravans coming across Mexico are actually following the legal procedure. But then we turn them away at the checkpoints and say we're too busy to let them apply - which many folks consider illegal under international law, so we're the ones breaking the law here. Faced with no way to legally request asylum at the border, many of these people cross the border (which is technically illegal, though a misdemeanor) and turn themselves into a border patrol asking for asylum, which is perfectly legal. So we are forcing people to break a minor law, which is normally penalized by a $10 fine, in order to follow the legal pathway to asylum. So is it really the law-breaking that's the problem here?
Let's try an analogy. Let's say your child is sick or injured. You know, high fever/loss of consciousness/lots of bleeding/their-life-is-in-danger kind of trouble. What do you do? Call for help? But what if that help takes too long? What if it never comes? I bet it's the conservative men out there who would be the first to say they'd take their kid to the hospital themselves. We're doers in this country: we take action and solve our own problems.
Great! So you load your kid into your 4x4 because it's a stormy night and the roads are rough and you head for the hospital. But do you conscientiously follow the speed limit? I mean, speeding is breaking the law. But somehow I'm guessing you feel speeding would be justified in this situation. Maybe even a little 'reckless' driving if necessary to avoid downed trees or washed out gullies. You have to save your kid - f@ck the speed limit!
Okay, fair enough, but as you approach the hospital you find the Highway Patrol blocking the road. It's closed, they say. Too dangerous and crowded. Maybe try again later. Well, they are the law, so I'm sure you just sit and wait, even if you can see the road looks totally open. No!
You're the hero of this damn analogy! You do whatever it takes to save that kid. You drive around - over? - those road closed signs and you get your kid to the ER. If Johnny Law wants to stop you, you'll deal with him after your kid is safe.
Well done! You arrive at the hospital and you turn your kid over to the staff who promptly dump them in the waiting room (or a steel cage). Armed security escorts you to a cell, which you willingly accept because you broke the law. They keep you in there for weeks, without telling you what happened to your kid, and then decide you're to lose custody of your kid. I mean, you broke the law! You deserve to be permanently separated from your children. We have to follow the law, otherwise we're a nation of chaos!
If that scenario sounds ridiculous to you, ask yourself why? What does the one parent seeking asylum at the border lack that the parent driving to the hospital has? Does their nationality really matter in this situation? The color of their skin? Of course we're a nation of laws, but that's only a good thing when the law is followed by those who enforce it and its reach and punishments are proportional to the offense.
We also used to be a country of morality and compassion. We held ourselves out as a beacon of decency and opportunity. When we deny the humanity of others, when we close ourselves off and defend our unwillingness to help with absurd justifications based on technicalities, we lose who we are meant to be. Remember: the hero in the story is always the one trying to save the children. The villain always pursues their self-interest at the expense of others. Choose who you want to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)