There is a post over on WattsUpwiththat about the use of the term climate "deniers". My 2p:
As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments.
In the end, even if it is agreed by all parties that the term "denier" is not politically correct, the terminology is peripheral. You call us warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists &c, and we use the term deniers.
The debate about terminology is peripheral. The central argument is about climatology, and in particular, whether the hypothesis that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is capable of being supported by the data.
In fact, I have tried using the term sceptic, but it always felt uncomfortable, unfair to genuine sceptics.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Must financial prosperity precede sustainable development?
The Elders are a group of senior statesmen like Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter who are applying their wisdom and experience to global problems. They are stimulating a series of discussions, and one of the questions asked is,
"Why is it so hard to make effective change a reality? What are the barriers to change?"
My 2p:
I would like to pick up just one of these barriers, approaching it as a cognitive therapist approaches a client, by examining the thinking and assumptions that lie behind a problem.
A very common argument put forward by politicians is "Financial prosperity must precede sustainable development". That is, we must get rich first, and then we can spend some of our wealth on cleaning up.
In these recession-hit times, the same thought is expressed as, "Interest in the environment has fallen down the list of priorities due to the recession".
These assumptions are the very opposite of true.
In recession, the problem is widespread unemployment. The essence of our ecological crisis is that there is a vast amount of work that needs to be done - work in energy conservation, renewable energy technology, in power distribution and storage, in organic agriculture, in water management, in re-forestation and in many other areas, right through to enabling people who are old, sick and vulnerable to be cared for.
Given the amount of good, creative, constructive work that needs to be done, unemployment is absolutely unnecessary. The challenge is for economists and politicians to find ways of diverting money away from the casino economy and into the real economy.
This can be done, by understanding exactly how it is that money is created, but it has to be admitted that the resistance of vested interests against this transition will be immense.
However, one of the most potent ways this resistance is expressed is through the meme "Financial prosperity must precede sustainable development". If we vigorously challenge this statement every time it is rolled out, we will be pulling one of the props out from under the engine that is destroying our world.
"Why is it so hard to make effective change a reality? What are the barriers to change?"
My 2p:
I would like to pick up just one of these barriers, approaching it as a cognitive therapist approaches a client, by examining the thinking and assumptions that lie behind a problem.
A very common argument put forward by politicians is "Financial prosperity must precede sustainable development". That is, we must get rich first, and then we can spend some of our wealth on cleaning up.
In these recession-hit times, the same thought is expressed as, "Interest in the environment has fallen down the list of priorities due to the recession".
These assumptions are the very opposite of true.
In recession, the problem is widespread unemployment. The essence of our ecological crisis is that there is a vast amount of work that needs to be done - work in energy conservation, renewable energy technology, in power distribution and storage, in organic agriculture, in water management, in re-forestation and in many other areas, right through to enabling people who are old, sick and vulnerable to be cared for.
Given the amount of good, creative, constructive work that needs to be done, unemployment is absolutely unnecessary. The challenge is for economists and politicians to find ways of diverting money away from the casino economy and into the real economy.
This can be done, by understanding exactly how it is that money is created, but it has to be admitted that the resistance of vested interests against this transition will be immense.
However, one of the most potent ways this resistance is expressed is through the meme "Financial prosperity must precede sustainable development". If we vigorously challenge this statement every time it is rolled out, we will be pulling one of the props out from under the engine that is destroying our world.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Free Market Fundamentalism's absurd contradiction
Regular readers know that I have been debating with a free marketeer.
Free market fundamentalism (FMF) has an inherent internal contradiction:
How come that a free market,
which consists of sinful* men
competing against each other for filthy lucre, which is the root of all evil,
can produce the best of all possible economic worlds?
This is the opposite of axiomatic.
(Green economics is based on three axioms or self evident truths)
All they can do is to say that law makers who seek to influence the market may make errors also. This is true: but the law makers are working, however imperfectly, from a position of being democratically elected to serve the interests of the people, and if the interests of the people are logically worked through, they will arrive at the aforementioned three axioms.
The fact is that Free Market Fundamentalism is a species of philosophical idealism, perhaps the last remaining in an age when most real philosophers have abandoned idealism.
Its idealism is of a free market whose Invisible Hand will make everything right. This is clearly not the case, but when faced with this, FMFs blame the contamination of the ideal with interference by Governments.
They overlook the tendency for market actors themselves to interfere in the free market, distorting it by forming cartels and also by bending public opinion away from reality, as in the case of AGW sceptics.
FMF is absurd, and it's continued existence is a tribute to the power of money to influence thought and opinion.
*Tories seem to believe in original sin, but it still works without original sin, by substituting self-motivated individuals.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Green-Free Market Fundamentalist debate: On Inequality
In my debate with Mark Littlewood a free marketeer, I claimed that Wilkinson and Pickett in the Spirit Level are showing that unequal societies suffer from all manner of social ills.
Mark contests this, saying:
ML: The Spirit Level cannot possibly be described as consisting of “sound scientific facts”. It’s now been conclusively debunked. The data used is partial, some of the data sources are questionable – and data has been omitted which does not suit their conclusions.
ML: Christopher Snowdon’s “Spirit Level Delusion” blows Wilkinson and Pickett apart http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.co.uk/
RL: Again, you are using charged, extreme language. I have criticised Snowdon's approach here, and his methodology here. Snowdon is very far from "blowing W&P apart".
Another deconstruction of the preposterous assertions made by Wilkinson and Pickett can be found here http://www.petersaunders.org.uk/cis_presentation_on_the_spirit_level_6_june_2011.html
I’ve yet to come across any serious attempt to rebut Saunders’ or Snowdon’s devastating critique.
Mark contests this, saying:
ML: The Spirit Level cannot possibly be described as consisting of “sound scientific facts”. It’s now been conclusively debunked. The data used is partial, some of the data sources are questionable – and data has been omitted which does not suit their conclusions.
RL: You're over-claiming here, Mark. "Conclusively debunked" it is not. It has been challenged by free market fundamentalists, as is to be expected, but it stands.
ML: I don’t know a single, serious economist who now believes their conclusions stack up.
ML: I don’t know a single, serious economist who now believes their conclusions stack up.
RL: Two things. For me, a "serious" economist is one who predicted the 2009 crash. All the others are just common economists, and if you get two of such economists in a room, you will have three or more opinions on any economic matter. Common Economists are not scientists, they are obscurantist ideological wranglers.
The second point is that Wilkinson and Pickett are epidemiologists, not economists. Epidemiology, unlike economics, is a proper science, and for real discussion we need to look to the community of epidemiologists. There is debate there, the consensus is not as advanced as the consensus over AGW in the climatology community, but among epidemiologists, the inequality-disorder link stands up pretty well.
There are multiple lines of enquiry, including civil servant and other animal studies. Here's an introduction to the idea that social status affects gene expression.
There are multiple lines of enquiry, including civil servant and other animal studies. Here's an introduction to the idea that social status affects gene expression.
ML: One analysis of their work shows that there might just be a minor correlation between infant mortality and equality.
RL: This is Peter Saunders' Policy Exchange critique. His admission that infant mortality correlates with inequality is in itself is an important and significant fact.
ML: – but the rest is pretty much garbage (and if you produce enough scattergrams you’d expect to find some sort of correlation somewhere by sheer chance – for example, the rise of Manchester City football club over the last decade correlates pretty closely to a widening gap in incomes, but it certainly isn’t the cause of it).
RL: Again, you are overclaiming. Very significant is the aggregated correlation of several indices, which shows a very tight adherence to proportionality between social dysfunction and inequality:
ML: Christopher Snowdon’s “Spirit Level Delusion” blows Wilkinson and Pickett apart http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.co.uk/
RL: Again, you are using charged, extreme language. I have criticised Snowdon's approach here, and his methodology here. Snowdon is very far from "blowing W&P apart".
Another deconstruction of the preposterous assertions made by Wilkinson and Pickett can be found here http://www.petersaunders.org.uk/cis_presentation_on_the_spirit_level_6_june_2011.html
I’ve yet to come across any serious attempt to rebut Saunders’ or Snowdon’s devastating critique.
As a matter of interest, I produce an hypothesis here to try to explain why inequality should produce social stress.
So, in this debate between green and free marketeer, we come across a second instance where free market ideology comes into conflict with science - the first, of course, being the clash over climate change.
This is not unexpected, since there is a third clash - over the nature of homo "Sapiens".
FMFs are individualists, that is, their philosophy is founded on the experience of man as an individual.
H. "sapiens" is a social animal, plain and simple, without any shadow of doubt.
So FMF ideology is an idealism, an idea divorced from reality at its very inception. Therefore it is to be expected that it keeps clashing with the findings of science.
This is not unexpected, since there is a third clash - over the nature of homo "Sapiens".
FMFs are individualists, that is, their philosophy is founded on the experience of man as an individual.
H. "sapiens" is a social animal, plain and simple, without any shadow of doubt.
So FMF ideology is an idealism, an idea divorced from reality at its very inception. Therefore it is to be expected that it keeps clashing with the findings of science.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Free Market/Green Debate: the Rich-Poor Gap
I am debating with Mark Littlewood of the IEA, a free marketeer.
He writes:
What sort of contribution from the top 1% or top 10% would be considered “fair”?
If Mr X earns £1m per annum and Mr Y earns an average salary of £25K per annum, when (if ever) should the next marginal £ of tax be charged to Mr Y?
Only when Mr X’s and Mr Y’s post-tax income are identical?
I don’t pretend to have a perfect answer here – although I probably lean towards proportional rather than progressive taxes on income, anyway.
But then I’m not the one crying out for the rich to be taxed more.
Those who think the present contribution of the rich is patently unfair and a greater burden should be placed on their shoulders need to ask when this burden is sufficient.
To my mind, if the top 1% earn 12% of income but pay 28% of income tax, this isn’t obviously and transparently too small a burden.
My response:
Mark, I think you should be crying out for the rich to be taxed more, and I will try to show why.
There is huge scope for confusion in the realm of taxation. Accountants can produce wildly different analyses from the same set of figures. To start from a hypothetical individual and work out from that does not strike me as a promising method, so I am not going to try to answer your points, but to establish a framework.
The best way forward is to look for some sound scientific facts and work from there.
In their book the Spirit Level, the epidemiologists Wilkinson and Pickett (among others) have shown that more equal societies are more healthy societies.
We therefore need for economies to tend towards more equality, need our societies to tend to become more equitable.
This is not to say that we seek perfect equality of wealth and income, but that at least, inequality should not be continually increasing, as is the case at present.
I glean, from Injustice Facts, (10th April) that the income hap between the richest quintile and poorest quintile was
108:1 in 2007
74:1 in 1997
60:1 in 1990
30:1 in 1960
We have a very clear divergence tendency here. Are you content that this should continue?
We believe that, over time, there should be a tendency for rich and poor to converge, rather than to diverge.
There is an innate divergent tendency in our economic system.
This comes at least in part from the role of lending at interest in the production of money. The owner of surplus money can lend it out, and will will see his wealth grow, while the borrower will have to pay for his access to money. This leads to a net flow of money from poorer to richer.
This divergence, carried to its logical conclusion, means that the poor will tend to the point of starvation. Before they get to that stage, there will be food riots, leading to general riots, arson, repression, and civil war, ending either in revolution (usually resulting in dictatorship) or repression (more dictatorship).
Therefore enlightened self interest should tell the rich that divergence is not sustainable, that divergence must end, and that convergence must replace divergence.
Progressive taxation levels is one of the instruments needed to bring this about.
Therefore it is desirable for all, including the rich, for the rich to pay a greater percentage of their income into the common wealth.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
He writes:
What sort of contribution from the top 1% or top 10% would be considered “fair”?
If Mr X earns £1m per annum and Mr Y earns an average salary of £25K per annum, when (if ever) should the next marginal £ of tax be charged to Mr Y?
Only when Mr X’s and Mr Y’s post-tax income are identical?
I don’t pretend to have a perfect answer here – although I probably lean towards proportional rather than progressive taxes on income, anyway.
But then I’m not the one crying out for the rich to be taxed more.
Those who think the present contribution of the rich is patently unfair and a greater burden should be placed on their shoulders need to ask when this burden is sufficient.
To my mind, if the top 1% earn 12% of income but pay 28% of income tax, this isn’t obviously and transparently too small a burden.
My response:
Mark, I think you should be crying out for the rich to be taxed more, and I will try to show why.
There is huge scope for confusion in the realm of taxation. Accountants can produce wildly different analyses from the same set of figures. To start from a hypothetical individual and work out from that does not strike me as a promising method, so I am not going to try to answer your points, but to establish a framework.
The best way forward is to look for some sound scientific facts and work from there.
In their book the Spirit Level, the epidemiologists Wilkinson and Pickett (among others) have shown that more equal societies are more healthy societies.
We therefore need for economies to tend towards more equality, need our societies to tend to become more equitable.
This is not to say that we seek perfect equality of wealth and income, but that at least, inequality should not be continually increasing, as is the case at present.
I glean, from Injustice Facts, (10th April) that the income hap between the richest quintile and poorest quintile was
108:1 in 2007
74:1 in 1997
60:1 in 1990
30:1 in 1960
We have a very clear divergence tendency here. Are you content that this should continue?
We believe that, over time, there should be a tendency for rich and poor to converge, rather than to diverge.
There is an innate divergent tendency in our economic system.
This comes at least in part from the role of lending at interest in the production of money. The owner of surplus money can lend it out, and will will see his wealth grow, while the borrower will have to pay for his access to money. This leads to a net flow of money from poorer to richer.
This divergence, carried to its logical conclusion, means that the poor will tend to the point of starvation. Before they get to that stage, there will be food riots, leading to general riots, arson, repression, and civil war, ending either in revolution (usually resulting in dictatorship) or repression (more dictatorship).
Therefore enlightened self interest should tell the rich that divergence is not sustainable, that divergence must end, and that convergence must replace divergence.
Progressive taxation levels is one of the instruments needed to bring this about.
Therefore it is desirable for all, including the rich, for the rich to pay a greater percentage of their income into the common wealth.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Green vs Free Market Fundamentalist Debate II
Yesterday's blogpost reviewed a Twitter debate over tax policy between myself and Mark Littlewood.
Today we move on to higher thing: state spending, and idealism vs reality.
Mark (MJL) is against high state spending. I am against inefficient state spending, and point to state investment in energy conservation as a highly efficient and desirable thing. Mark says "Energy conservation should be optimalised in a properly functioning free market."
I would like an expansion on this point, because it is clearly not happening.
Energy companies make more profit the more energy they sell, so at this point the market is clearly working against energy conservation. The trouble is, I tweet, that the oil & coal lobby are lobbying Govt for all they are worth, and distorting developments.
I ask Mark for his ideal small state. Is it the USA? He's not keen on the USA as a role model, because their spending is still 40% of GDP. I aver that the USA is barbaric in terms of its prisons and health policies. He thinks their health services are not so bad. We don't go into that.
He is in favour of the "growth of Hong Kong from 1945 onwards. It is a good role model, although imperfect." Singapore scores well on having low intervention by the state on the market, but fails on other liberties.
I respond "So economic deregulation does not get linked automatically with individual liberty".
This is an important point, a fault line within the individualist ideology, because the libertarians identify individual liberty and FMF.
He says main dividing line in politics is now between statists (who favour big govt) and classical liberals who don't.
I say biggest divide is between those who accept ecological science & those who don't. Sadly, in this regard, libertarians/FMFs are worst.
MJL: " I'm pretty agnostic on AGW in terms of the science. And I don't think it's a binary issue in political terms."
I've met this one before, with Benny Peiser.
RL: "Agnosicism not scientific category. In this scientific debate, the choice is between climate science, or the sceptics' low Climate Sensitivity hypothesis.
Mark doesn't pick up on this. No AGW skeptic has, because they frankly have a threadbare argument at the core of their hypothesis. They believe only one baby will wake, when it is perfectly clear, and well substantiated, that warming will produce positive feedbacks from other areas within the climate system.
AGW sceptics are comfortable to put 1001 nit-picking arguments against climate science, but blank the one simple question directed at their own hypothesis.
In classic form, Mark comes back with a dig at the Hockey stick - the many times replicated evidence that there is a significant warming taking place in our generation. The trouble with sceptics is that they believe their own propaganda. The hysterical and oft-repeated ad hominem attacks on Michael Mann are so prolific that they think they must be true.
In fact, the evidence still points to historic recent warmings.
I would urge everyone to read the link above, which shows that recent temperature rises are significant when set against the historic record. They have been repeated over and again. This is science properly carried out, checked, questioned and replicated.
It is a testament to the desperate need of free market fundamentalists to deny that the free market in fossil fuels could cause any conceivable external problem that they choose to believe the massed bands of sceptical journalists and bloggers against such a sound body of science. And testament moreover to their absolute conviction that they have no need to look to defend their own hypothesis against this one clear and simple question - are there positive feedbacks in the atmospheric energy exchange system or not?
This really is the essence of the debate.
I will re-state it.
The essence is the term "Free Market". Greens have no problem with the "market". A market is a natural and enjoyable human experience. We are not statists, state capitalists, or Command Economists. We are in favour of maximising individual freedom as far as is possible within given social and environmental limits.
Today we move on to higher thing: state spending, and idealism vs reality.
Mark (MJL) is against high state spending. I am against inefficient state spending, and point to state investment in energy conservation as a highly efficient and desirable thing. Mark says "Energy conservation should be optimalised in a properly functioning free market."
I would like an expansion on this point, because it is clearly not happening.
Energy companies make more profit the more energy they sell, so at this point the market is clearly working against energy conservation. The trouble is, I tweet, that the oil & coal lobby are lobbying Govt for all they are worth, and distorting developments.
I ask Mark for his ideal small state. Is it the USA? He's not keen on the USA as a role model, because their spending is still 40% of GDP. I aver that the USA is barbaric in terms of its prisons and health policies. He thinks their health services are not so bad. We don't go into that.
He is in favour of the "growth of Hong Kong from 1945 onwards. It is a good role model, although imperfect." Singapore scores well on having low intervention by the state on the market, but fails on other liberties.
I respond "So economic deregulation does not get linked automatically with individual liberty".
This is an important point, a fault line within the individualist ideology, because the libertarians identify individual liberty and FMF.
He says main dividing line in politics is now between statists (who favour big govt) and classical liberals who don't.
I say biggest divide is between those who accept ecological science & those who don't. Sadly, in this regard, libertarians/FMFs are worst.
MJL: " I'm pretty agnostic on AGW in terms of the science. And I don't think it's a binary issue in political terms."
I've met this one before, with Benny Peiser.
RL: "Agnosicism not scientific category. In this scientific debate, the choice is between climate science, or the sceptics' low Climate Sensitivity hypothesis.
Mark doesn't pick up on this. No AGW skeptic has, because they frankly have a threadbare argument at the core of their hypothesis. They believe only one baby will wake, when it is perfectly clear, and well substantiated, that warming will produce positive feedbacks from other areas within the climate system.
AGW sceptics are comfortable to put 1001 nit-picking arguments against climate science, but blank the one simple question directed at their own hypothesis.
In classic form, Mark comes back with a dig at the Hockey stick - the many times replicated evidence that there is a significant warming taking place in our generation. The trouble with sceptics is that they believe their own propaganda. The hysterical and oft-repeated ad hominem attacks on Michael Mann are so prolific that they think they must be true.
In fact, the evidence still points to historic recent warmings.
I would urge everyone to read the link above, which shows that recent temperature rises are significant when set against the historic record. They have been repeated over and again. This is science properly carried out, checked, questioned and replicated.
It is a testament to the desperate need of free market fundamentalists to deny that the free market in fossil fuels could cause any conceivable external problem that they choose to believe the massed bands of sceptical journalists and bloggers against such a sound body of science. And testament moreover to their absolute conviction that they have no need to look to defend their own hypothesis against this one clear and simple question - are there positive feedbacks in the atmospheric energy exchange system or not?
This really is the essence of the debate.
I will re-state it.
The essence is the term "Free Market". Greens have no problem with the "market". A market is a natural and enjoyable human experience. We are not statists, state capitalists, or Command Economists. We are in favour of maximising individual freedom as far as is possible within given social and environmental limits.
The Greens' position is neither a Marxist Command Economy, nor FMF, but a Guided Market - guided to better serve the needs of society and environment.
It is the idea of the FREE market - or more accurately, Free Market Fundamentalism (FMF) as George Soros puts it, which is the problem. FMF idealises and absolutises the freedom of the Market as a quasi-divine and unchallengable Invisible Hand. All that is wrong in any economy stems from inhibition of the freedom of the market, in their view.
FMF leads necessarily to AGW denial, because if the science is right, it means that international cooperation must in this regard have precedence over international competition.
The carbon market must be regulated in some way, whether by taxation or more subtle means, to ensure a transition from finite, "natural capital" carbon based energy to non-finite, "natural income" renewable energy.
This intervention into the holy and inviolate Free Carbon Market is unacceptable to FMFs, and therefore climate science must be wrong. An amazingly successful worldwide propaganda blitz has ensured that this meme has run, so that a large percentage of the population, not just Daily Mail readers, but also intelligent people like Mark Littlewood, believe in the propaganda to the extent that they feel no need to examine the soundness of their One Baby hypothesis.
In short, the idealism of the Free Market believer causes him or her to overlook, question, or deny any evidence that the free market can harm society or the environment.
In short, the idealism of the Free Market believer causes him or her to overlook, question, or deny any evidence that the free market can harm society or the environment.
That is why the debate of the century is between the free marketeers and the greens.
In almost all regards, there is no agreement. Except, possibly, one: Externalities. More on this later.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Debate: Green vs Free Market Ideology
I have been having a very long and enjoyable debate with @MarkJLittlewood, CEO of the Institute for Economic Affairs, which aims to disseminate of free-market thinking. He was up against @RichardJMurphy, the excellent tax analyst, on Newsnight. They had a brief interchange on Twitter, and I poked my stick in.
The debate began back on 11th April, and has continued since. I am reviewing it here, on the grounds that the 21st century will be a battleground between two ideologies - that of the Greens (political ecologists), and that of the Free Market Fundamentalists. I am doing a certain amount of paraphrasing, to smooth out the note-form of Twitter, and naturally I will be able to expand my own point of view better than I can expand MJL, but I will do my best to be fair. Unusual for a free market fundamentalist, Mark (MJL) was polite and reasonable. I am happy to edit the text here if I have misrepresented.
This section is on taxation.
It began when MJL said that the top 1% earn 13% of national income and pay 28% of the total income tax take - implying (I suppose) that they are overtaxed.
I countered that the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the top 1% pay 12.8% of income tax. The top 10% (less the top 1%, confusingly) pay 27.6% of the total income tax take. But they have 31% of total income. So they're not over-taxed.
MJL came back with Office for National Statistics figures, which have the top 10% paying half of the IT take. The top 1% earn about 13% of income and pay about 28% of the tax (the latter % has been going up for 10+ years).
[update]
To which we could add these data from the nef site:
Net property wealth: the 1% own more in property than the 99% put together.
Total aggregate wealth (housing + financial + physical + pensions)
Top 1% of households: £1.3 trillion
Bottom half of households: £1.0 trillion
MJL was dealing in incomes, but absolute wealth puts things into better perspective.
[update ends]
That's accountancy for you. Confusion. Even so, when you are bringing in telephone number amounts of money, you can afford to pay more. It's just numbers, compared to people who are struggling to make ends meet. The rich benefit from being taxed, if the money is spent wisely. They get less crime, less risk of rebellion, arson, mayhem &c in a more equal society.
MJL: The issue is whether we really want the state to spend about 50% of national income. That's way too high. (He later sets the aim of the state having 29% of the national income - which is a massive 40% drop in the state's income). He is open minded about the rate at which the state's funding is cut - which is good, because one of the factors in Greece's collapse is the high flow of loan money which followed Greece's accession to the Euro, followed by the sudden cessation of the same flow after the 2009 crash.
Now this is the rub. The Small State Ideal. This is what George Osborne is all about - cutting down the State. The hullabaloo about the deficit is a smokescreen for his crazed chainsaw maniac attack on the British economy.
I countered: It's not so much the amount the state spends as the efficiency of its spending. We could cut down Trident &c, and go for real investment. I could have added the Green Wage Subsidy, which is a far more efficient way of managing welfare benefits - while getting people out of unemployment and greening the economy at the same time.
I advance@richardjmurphy's proposals (Anti-avoidance rule, Transparency, Increase HMRC staff, Reform small business tax, Close Tax Havens) which claim to be able to bring in an extra £25bn/yr to the UK economy.
MJL doubts they would produce that much.
MJL says a lot of tax avoidance is positively encouraged. For example you can pay £11K into an ISA every year.
I say this is weak. ISAs, charity giving and other breaks does not mean that super-rich should use havens and accountants to avoid tax. ISAs are aimed to encourage saving, charity breaks to encourage charitable giving. Tax avoidance for the mega-rich is just tax avoidance for the mega-rich, a haemorrhage of money away from the public purse. MJL says it is private money. I say It is clearly not reasonable that Warren Buffet pays less % of his income than his cleaner.
MJL: We need to stop believing the problem is too little tax - it's too much spending.
The debate began back on 11th April, and has continued since. I am reviewing it here, on the grounds that the 21st century will be a battleground between two ideologies - that of the Greens (political ecologists), and that of the Free Market Fundamentalists. I am doing a certain amount of paraphrasing, to smooth out the note-form of Twitter, and naturally I will be able to expand my own point of view better than I can expand MJL, but I will do my best to be fair. Unusual for a free market fundamentalist, Mark (MJL) was polite and reasonable. I am happy to edit the text here if I have misrepresented.
This section is on taxation.
It began when MJL said that the top 1% earn 13% of national income and pay 28% of the total income tax take - implying (I suppose) that they are overtaxed.
I countered that the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the top 1% pay 12.8% of income tax. The top 10% (less the top 1%, confusingly) pay 27.6% of the total income tax take. But they have 31% of total income. So they're not over-taxed.
MJL came back with Office for National Statistics figures, which have the top 10% paying half of the IT take. The top 1% earn about 13% of income and pay about 28% of the tax (the latter % has been going up for 10+ years).
[update]
To which we could add these data from the nef site:
Net property wealth: the 1% own more in property than the 99% put together.
Total aggregate wealth (housing + financial + physical + pensions)
Top 1% of households: £1.3 trillion
Bottom half of households: £1.0 trillion
MJL was dealing in incomes, but absolute wealth puts things into better perspective.
[update ends]
That's accountancy for you. Confusion. Even so, when you are bringing in telephone number amounts of money, you can afford to pay more. It's just numbers, compared to people who are struggling to make ends meet. The rich benefit from being taxed, if the money is spent wisely. They get less crime, less risk of rebellion, arson, mayhem &c in a more equal society.
MJL: The issue is whether we really want the state to spend about 50% of national income. That's way too high. (He later sets the aim of the state having 29% of the national income - which is a massive 40% drop in the state's income). He is open minded about the rate at which the state's funding is cut - which is good, because one of the factors in Greece's collapse is the high flow of loan money which followed Greece's accession to the Euro, followed by the sudden cessation of the same flow after the 2009 crash.
Now this is the rub. The Small State Ideal. This is what George Osborne is all about - cutting down the State. The hullabaloo about the deficit is a smokescreen for his crazed chainsaw maniac attack on the British economy.
I countered: It's not so much the amount the state spends as the efficiency of its spending. We could cut down Trident &c, and go for real investment. I could have added the Green Wage Subsidy, which is a far more efficient way of managing welfare benefits - while getting people out of unemployment and greening the economy at the same time.
I advance
MJL doubts they would produce that much.
I say Osborne himself says tax avoidance costs UK £5bn p.a. He is bound to underestimate, because Osborne is a tax avoider himself, to the tune of £1.6 million.
I say this is weak. ISAs, charity giving and other breaks does not mean that super-rich should use havens and accountants to avoid tax. ISAs are aimed to encourage saving, charity breaks to encourage charitable giving. Tax avoidance for the mega-rich is just tax avoidance for the mega-rich, a haemorrhage of money away from the public purse. MJL says it is private money. I say It is clearly not reasonable that Warren Buffet pays less % of his income than his cleaner.
MJL: We need to stop believing the problem is too little tax - it's too much spending.
RL: Osborne keeps on about how awful the deficit is. That cannot be addressed by cutting spending alone. We must also staunch the haemorrhage represented by mega tax avoidance. And we need better, more wisely directed investment - primarily into energy conservation.
This opens up a whole new area of discussion, which I will review later. I hope this gives a flavour of the debate between a Green and Free Marketeer, which as I say, is the major debate of our age.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Debate with a Libertarian
I have been discussing on Twitter with @V__Vendetta who seems to be a libertarian and a "small stater". These people intrigue me, as they can come on as real tory right winger authoritarians, which seems to contradict the idea of liberty. We began the debate on Twitter, but V came up using Twitlonger, and I copied it over here so we could debate in more than 140 characters.
Many people resent people "playing the benefits system" and it's destructive behaviour as it creates resentment against all and any benefit recipients regardless of their position. Most of us would wish to help people who are between jobs, layed off, unlucky, whatever but we don't like freeloaders. The state can only be indiscriminant about benefits (anyone with x income etc) whereas the people naturally have a greater concept of "deserving". We'd still not let someone die or fall ill, but we want to give less to one who doesn't help himself and give back. The state can't and doesn't do this and it causes problems.
We have talk of 'fat tax' or paying people to be slim - why? Because it's costing NHS (government) money, not because they 'care' else they would ban this and that rather than taxing it. But without the state giving "free" care in the first place, this mechanism would naturally exist in higher insurance premia for poor lifestyles and waistlines. Would we let the poor die? No, we'd pay a base voluntarily. By subsidising the supplier not the consumer in health we make a poor system which demotivates both sides. Supplier gets paid anyway so wait for months (and that's just for the phone to be answered) and consumer has no choice or fiduciary benefit. The poor lifestyles of others are socialised. Bailed out...
Pretty much any action taken by government causes problems - pick your favourite.
V says:
Many people resent people "playing the benefits system" and it's destructive behaviour as it creates resentment against all and any benefit recipients regardless of their position. Most of us would wish to help people who are between jobs, layed off, unlucky, whatever but we don't like freeloaders. The state can only be indiscriminant about benefits (anyone with x income etc) whereas the people naturally have a greater concept of "deserving". We'd still not let someone die or fall ill, but we want to give less to one who doesn't help himself and give back. The state can't and doesn't do this and it causes problems.
We have talk of 'fat tax' or paying people to be slim - why? Because it's costing NHS (government) money, not because they 'care' else they would ban this and that rather than taxing it. But without the state giving "free" care in the first place, this mechanism would naturally exist in higher insurance premia for poor lifestyles and waistlines. Would we let the poor die? No, we'd pay a base voluntarily. By subsidising the supplier not the consumer in health we make a poor system which demotivates both sides. Supplier gets paid anyway so wait for months (and that's just for the phone to be answered) and consumer has no choice or fiduciary benefit. The poor lifestyles of others are socialised. Bailed out...
Pretty much any action taken by government causes problems - pick your favourite.
My response:
Benefits:
Sure, self-reliance and responsibility has been a Green meme for as long as I can remember.
But we object to the right-wing tabloids absurd obsession with daily exposure of freeloader cases. Benefit cheats cost the economy £1bn a year, but tax cheats and avoiders cost more like £100bn a year.
If only the tabloids would concentrate as strongly on the big cheats.
Families with a long history of unemployment will need re-education.
However, in the present recession, there is a scarcity of jobs, and the indigent will be the last to get a job when one becomes available.
Therefore it makes more sense to concentrate on providing jobs for them as wants one, namely through the Green Wage Subsidy.
If only the tabloids would concentrate as strongly on the big cheats.
Families with a long history of unemployment will need re-education.
However, in the present recession, there is a scarcity of jobs, and the indigent will be the last to get a job when one becomes available.
Therefore it makes more sense to concentrate on providing jobs for them as wants one, namely through the Green Wage Subsidy.
The Fat Tax is a good thing, something I put in Bills of Health. It is an instance of Polluter Pays - in line with personal responsibility. You put a product on the market which harms people, you pay for the harm you cause. Need a Sugar Tax too.
V, are you sure you didn't get Supplier and consumer the wrong way round?
[Update] Coincidentally, the excellent Unlearning Economics website started writing about libertarianism at the same time as I started this. Theirs is much better. It is here.
V, are you sure you didn't get Supplier and consumer the wrong way round?
[Update] Coincidentally, the excellent Unlearning Economics website started writing about libertarianism at the same time as I started this. Theirs is much better. It is here.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Climate change debate: Sceptic position is not scientific.
Summary of the extensive debate on the previous posts:
To be scientific, a position must be refutable. I asked Dr Benny Peiser, Director of "Lord" Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, what testable statement underpinned his case.
He replied that we should wait 20-30 years until we know the magnitude of AGW. "If we were to experience a decadal warming trend of 0.3 to 0.5 in the next 20-30 years, I would consider global warming to pose a potential long-term problem".
However, that is not a test of their position regarding Man-Made Greenhouse Gases (MMGHGs).
They could attribute an increase that to an underlying long term increase in solar output, or conversely, if there were a long term solar minimum over the next 30 years, the decadal trend might be less, but still more than it would have been without increased GHGs, with rapid global heating to be expected after the minimum.
So an actual global temperature trend would not be conclusive.
Also, in taking this approach, the sceptic is performing a massive experiment on the entire planet. An experiment with potentially disastrous consequences. No formal Ethical Committee (if such existed) would sanction it, and it certainly goes against the Precautionary Principle, which itself places the burden of proof on the sceptics.
Peiser says “I am agnostic on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, I do not hold a position that can be refuted”.
This will not do. Agnosticism applies to belief systems, not to science. Scientific statements must be refutable.
Implicit in what he says is the idea that the effect of CO2 on climate is weaker than the 2*C +/- 1.5*C that climate science points to. Some work done by a few sceptical scientists comes up with a figure in the region of 0.5*C.
It is clear therefore that the thesis of the climate sceptics stands or falls on the truth or otherwise of the statement:
That is a statement which the climate sceptics should be pressed to sustain. They will put forward a few papers by Lindzen, Spencer and others. These papers have already been criticised, but they should be methodically scrutinised. In way, they are the most important papers in the climate debate.
To be scientific, a position must be refutable. I asked Dr Benny Peiser, Director of "Lord" Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, what testable statement underpinned his case.
He replied that we should wait 20-30 years until we know the magnitude of AGW. "If we were to experience a decadal warming trend of 0.3 to 0.5 in the next 20-30 years, I would consider global warming to pose a potential long-term problem".
However, that is not a test of their position regarding Man-Made Greenhouse Gases (MMGHGs).
They could attribute an increase that to an underlying long term increase in solar output, or conversely, if there were a long term solar minimum over the next 30 years, the decadal trend might be less, but still more than it would have been without increased GHGs, with rapid global heating to be expected after the minimum.
So an actual global temperature trend would not be conclusive.
Also, in taking this approach, the sceptic is performing a massive experiment on the entire planet. An experiment with potentially disastrous consequences. No formal Ethical Committee (if such existed) would sanction it, and it certainly goes against the Precautionary Principle, which itself places the burden of proof on the sceptics.
Peiser says “I am agnostic on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, I do not hold a position that can be refuted”.
This will not do. Agnosticism applies to belief systems, not to science. Scientific statements must be refutable.
Implicit in what he says is the idea that the effect of CO2 on climate is weaker than the 2*C +/- 1.5*C that climate science points to. Some work done by a few sceptical scientists comes up with a figure in the region of 0.5*C.
It is clear therefore that the thesis of the climate sceptics stands or falls on the truth or otherwise of the statement:
Climate sensitivity is well below 1.5*C
At the same time, the sceptics should also answer every question posed to their position by the many papers that set climate sensitivty at 2 +/- 1.5*C.
The whole debate, and therefore the future wellbeing of humanity, hinges on this tiny, resolvable point. That sounds overblown, but it is not.
The high value accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate means that we have to transform our global economy, decarbonising and in all other ways greening our economy.
The low value means we can pretty much continue business as usual, at least until the oil runs out.
This is a major lifestyle choice for everyone on the planet... and it all hinges on the question of the value we should attach to climate sensitivity.
[revised 1.7.11]
Monday, December 20, 2010
The simplicity at the heart of the tuition fees debate
The university fees debate is very very complex, and I have lots of comments on this blog which have gone unanswered for far too long.
Sorry. Blame the snow.
Within complexity there is always a simplicity trying to get out. It is stifled, because the complexitarians are stuck into their complexities which they enjoy using as a bludgeon against the complexities of opposing complexitarians.
The simple truth is that education of the next generation is the duty of the present generation.
It is a tribute from the present to the future. The gods know that we have taken enough away from our children - stable climate, biodiversity and finite resources for starters - so we can at least educate the poor young buggers to help them cope with the mess we bequeath them.
Education must be paid for.
There are two extremes to paying for education. We can either pay it 100% from general taxation, or we can privatise it 100%.
The Green Party's education policy seems to go for the former, 100% taxation extreme, and there are no doubt neo-liberals who would like to see the whole thing totally privatised.
Doing it from general taxation is perfectly reasonable: all society benefits from education, so all society pays for it. It is far more simple and less administratively complex. The graduates pay back through the higher taxes on their enhanced salaries.
On the other hand, it is not totally unreasonable to ask the student's parents to make some kind of contribution. At very least, it makes them value the course more.
So between the two extremes, politicians have to set the slider to determine which proportion will come from general taxation, and which from the individual student. So it is not too difficult. Negotiators can take a vote on the number ratios (50/50, 70/30, 90/10 &c) and then decide how to implement the agreed numbers.
For starters, I would suggest leaving it where it is, pretty much.
In this debate, we must remember ALL young people, including those who choose not to go to Uni. It is in the interests of the students to start addressing their situation, because the apprentices &c are beginning to grumble.
Hope this helps.
Sorry. Blame the snow.
Within complexity there is always a simplicity trying to get out. It is stifled, because the complexitarians are stuck into their complexities which they enjoy using as a bludgeon against the complexities of opposing complexitarians.
The simple truth is that education of the next generation is the duty of the present generation.
It is a tribute from the present to the future. The gods know that we have taken enough away from our children - stable climate, biodiversity and finite resources for starters - so we can at least educate the poor young buggers to help them cope with the mess we bequeath them.
Education must be paid for.
There are two extremes to paying for education. We can either pay it 100% from general taxation, or we can privatise it 100%.
The Green Party's education policy seems to go for the former, 100% taxation extreme, and there are no doubt neo-liberals who would like to see the whole thing totally privatised.
Doing it from general taxation is perfectly reasonable: all society benefits from education, so all society pays for it. It is far more simple and less administratively complex. The graduates pay back through the higher taxes on their enhanced salaries.
On the other hand, it is not totally unreasonable to ask the student's parents to make some kind of contribution. At very least, it makes them value the course more.
So between the two extremes, politicians have to set the slider to determine which proportion will come from general taxation, and which from the individual student. So it is not too difficult. Negotiators can take a vote on the number ratios (50/50, 70/30, 90/10 &c) and then decide how to implement the agreed numbers.
For starters, I would suggest leaving it where it is, pretty much.
In this debate, we must remember ALL young people, including those who choose not to go to Uni. It is in the interests of the students to start addressing their situation, because the apprentices &c are beginning to grumble.
Hope this helps.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Stephen Hawking: a Genius, but not an Infallible Philosophical Authority
Dear old Stephen Hawkins. Lovely man, brain the size of a planet, and gifted with the ability to explain complex ideas in simple terms. But he also demonstrates the ability for great minds to miss the bleeding obvious.
Space.com news : "Stephen Hawking Says Humanity Won't Survive Without Leaving Earth".
"Humans stuck on Earth are at risk from two kinds of catastrophes, Hawking said. First, the kind we bring on ourselves, such as possible devastating impacts from climate change, or nuclear or biological warfare.
A number of cosmic phenomena could spell our demise, too. An asteroid could slam into Earth, killing large swaths of the population and rendering the planet uninhabitable. Or a supernova or gamma-ray burst near our spot in the Milky Way could prove ruinous for life on Earth".
Second, asteroids. Yes there is a possibility of asteroid impacts. Here, the same considerations apply. At the moment we are on a path to auto-destruction. An asteroid might get us before our own idiocy does - but what difference would it make, apart from a couple of centuries maybe? If, however, we make the necessary cognitive shift and address the sustainability problem, then we should be able to extend the strategy to a small asteroid interception facility. It's not rocket science*. You just have to send an unmanned vehicle to the asteroid and give it a gentle nudge away from its impact route.
Stephen is also worried about aliens. He shouldn't. The chance of spatio-temporal co-existence is too small.
This all reminds us of James Lovelock, another genius who has an Achilles' heel in the matter of nuclear power.
In short, geniuses are geniuses, but geniuses are not infallible.
More Hawking on this blog.
This is interesting.
And although this post gets a lot of stick, I'm in good company:
*Ok, Ok, it is rocket science, but it is not that difficult.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
The BMA Homoeopathy (homeopathy) debate
The BMA is calling for homoeopathy to be removed from the NHS.
OK. I'm going to put my head above the parapet, ready for a hail of machine gun products from the anti-homoeopathy activists.
I confess that I have prescribed a few homoeopathic remedies in my in my 30 years as a GP. Just a few - pulsatilla, arnica, rhus tox, aconite. I found aconite especially useful for patient self-management of panic attacks (backed by good information) - very much more useful, and less problematic, than diazepam. I saw no harm from it.
I saw some dramatic recoveries - coincidental, naturally. I saw a particularly impressive coincidence with an adolescent whose problematic asthma disappeared after one dose of a powder prescribed by a proper homoeopathic doctor.
I have huge respect for homoeopathic physicians. They are old-school. They engage with their patients, get to know them, and form a therapeutic relationship. The patient feels understood, and if the personal physician gives them a powder, they feel confident that they will get better. So they do.
At very least, homoeopath physicians in their natural habitat get an enhanced placebo effect.
Which would explain why published homoeopathic trials tend to show show positive effect, while randomised double blind trials tend not to show any effect. Or are reported as not showing any effect.
With the notable exception of David Reilly's work. David did an RCT on homoeopathic preparations in nasal allergy, and got a positive effect. His methods were criticised, so he repeated the work, taking on board the criticisms, and still got a positive effect.
Reilly has a .doc summary of the debate that can be downloaded from this page. It is fairly heavy going, with closely argued statistics so do not waste disc space if you do not do odds ratios and 95% CI's. But it does give another side to the picture about the scientific study of homoeopathy. For instance, the same device is used by H sceptics as has used by detractors of the Spirit Level - discarding unusually positive data.
He shows a picture of two clusters of placebo controlled trials, one of orthodox drugs, and one of homoeopathic remedies. It is impossible to tell the difference in terms of significance. So the analysts (whose abstract begins with the words "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible." ) proceed to extract 8 homosopathic trials and 6 orthodox trials, and conclude "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions". This was then reported in an editorial under the headline as The End of Homoeopathy, a report duly amplified in the mainstream media. I confess that I picked up on this. Which just shows that if you want to really know something, you have to trace it right back to source.
I have always asked, when in the right company, that Reilly's work be replicated using two identical ultra-dilute solutions, one prepared by succussion, and one by turbulent mixing. The hypothesis is that the turbulent mix solution will perform less well if succussion is having an effect.As far as I know, this has never been done. It should be.
The response of the objectors is that it just cannot work, because there is no atom present of the original molecule. Homoeopaths respond that the succussion (passing shock waves through the solution) process creates a "memory" in the water. Objectors ask for evidence of this memory.
Beneveniste thought he had found it, in demonstrating an effect on white cells from antibodies at homoeopathic dilutions. It seems that his effects were not replicated.
However, Louis Rey found this : Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30 g cm−3) have been irradiated by X- and gamma-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.
The scientific method requires that this work be replicated. It may have been; I don't know. I am coming late to this debate.
Next, this: "We discovered a previously unknown phenomenon in liquid water, which develops over time when water is left to stand undisturbed, and which made precise gravimetric measurement impossible. We term this property autothixotropy (weak gel-like behaviour developing spontaneously over time) and propose a possible explanation. The results of quantitative measurements, performed by two different methods, are presented. We also report the newly discovered phenomenon of autothixotropy-hysteresis and describe the dependence of autothixotropy on the degree of molecular translative freedom. A very important conclusion is that the presence of very low concentration of salt ions, these phenomena do not occur in deionized water. Salt ions may be the determinative condition for the occurrence of the phenomena". VybÃral + Vorácek2007
Reilly quotes Professor Luc Montagnier, a French virologist who co-discovered HIV and who won the Nobel Prize in 2008, made the radical claim ( 2009 ) that some bacterial DNA sequences are able to induce electromagnetic (EM) waves at high aqueous dilutions - if they were 'strongly agitated', a step 'critical for the generation of signals'.
He also cites "evidence of ultramolecular dilutions of histamine ability to inhibit basophil activation “in a reproducible fashion”" [ Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inlfamm Res 2004; 53:181-8]
These are the tip of the iceberg of papers relating to the micro-structure of water. I have a strong suspicion that water is far more sophisticated than the simple image that we have in our textbooks of tiny bouncy balls flying around at random.
Here is a simple starter on the micro structure of water.
The study of the micro-structure of water deserves scientific study. The trouble is that, because it is outside the mainstream, the people who do it tend to work on their own, and sometimes maybe their work leaves a little to be desired in terms of perfection. But the medical profession should never forget, and never, never repeat, what we did to poor Semmelweiss.
The essence of science is to say dogmatically, not "This is the case", but to ask, "Is this indeed the case?" In this debate, the question is, "Is it indeed the case that water has no nano-structure which is worthy of investigation?"
So there is something to the micro-structure of water that needs scientific investigation. Whether this will have any relevance to homoeopathic medicines we will have to wait and see.
What we do know is that homoeopathic physicians do meet a need. They have high patient satisfaction. Their medicines are not expensive. Above all, their medicines do not (cannot, in the view of the sceptics) cause side effects.
I do not agree with the request from my union, the BMA, to remove homoeopathy from the NHS. It should be allowed to continue, but under conditions of audit, covering all aspects of their practice: what diagnoses they are presented with, the success rates that they achieve, and their cost-effectiveness. When this evidence is collected, we will be able to make an evidence based decision on whether or not it is worthwhile for the NHS to continue to fund homoeopathic physicians.
This would seems a reasonable way to move forward on this issue.
Later blog on this.
OK. I'm going to put my head above the parapet, ready for a hail of machine gun products from the anti-homoeopathy activists.
I confess that I have prescribed a few homoeopathic remedies in my in my 30 years as a GP. Just a few - pulsatilla, arnica, rhus tox, aconite. I found aconite especially useful for patient self-management of panic attacks (backed by good information) - very much more useful, and less problematic, than diazepam. I saw no harm from it.
I saw some dramatic recoveries - coincidental, naturally. I saw a particularly impressive coincidence with an adolescent whose problematic asthma disappeared after one dose of a powder prescribed by a proper homoeopathic doctor.
I have huge respect for homoeopathic physicians. They are old-school. They engage with their patients, get to know them, and form a therapeutic relationship. The patient feels understood, and if the personal physician gives them a powder, they feel confident that they will get better. So they do.
At very least, homoeopath physicians in their natural habitat get an enhanced placebo effect.
Which would explain why published homoeopathic trials tend to show show positive effect, while randomised double blind trials tend not to show any effect. Or are reported as not showing any effect.
With the notable exception of David Reilly's work. David did an RCT on homoeopathic preparations in nasal allergy, and got a positive effect. His methods were criticised, so he repeated the work, taking on board the criticisms, and still got a positive effect.
Reilly has a .doc summary of the debate that can be downloaded from this page. It is fairly heavy going, with closely argued statistics so do not waste disc space if you do not do odds ratios and 95% CI's. But it does give another side to the picture about the scientific study of homoeopathy. For instance, the same device is used by H sceptics as has used by detractors of the Spirit Level - discarding unusually positive data.
He shows a picture of two clusters of placebo controlled trials, one of orthodox drugs, and one of homoeopathic remedies. It is impossible to tell the difference in terms of significance. So the analysts (whose abstract begins with the words "Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible." ) proceed to extract 8 homosopathic trials and 6 orthodox trials, and conclude "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions". This was then reported in an editorial under the headline as The End of Homoeopathy, a report duly amplified in the mainstream media. I confess that I picked up on this. Which just shows that if you want to really know something, you have to trace it right back to source.
I have always asked, when in the right company, that Reilly's work be replicated using two identical ultra-dilute solutions, one prepared by succussion, and one by turbulent mixing. The hypothesis is that the turbulent mix solution will perform less well if succussion is having an effect.As far as I know, this has never been done. It should be.
The response of the objectors is that it just cannot work, because there is no atom present of the original molecule. Homoeopaths respond that the succussion (passing shock waves through the solution) process creates a "memory" in the water. Objectors ask for evidence of this memory.
Beneveniste thought he had found it, in demonstrating an effect on white cells from antibodies at homoeopathic dilutions. It seems that his effects were not replicated.
However, Louis Rey found this : Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30 g cm−3) have been irradiated by X- and gamma-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.
The scientific method requires that this work be replicated. It may have been; I don't know. I am coming late to this debate.
Next, this: "We discovered a previously unknown phenomenon in liquid water, which develops over time when water is left to stand undisturbed, and which made precise gravimetric measurement impossible. We term this property autothixotropy (weak gel-like behaviour developing spontaneously over time) and propose a possible explanation. The results of quantitative measurements, performed by two different methods, are presented. We also report the newly discovered phenomenon of autothixotropy-hysteresis and describe the dependence of autothixotropy on the degree of molecular translative freedom. A very important conclusion is that the presence of very low concentration of salt ions, these phenomena do not occur in deionized water. Salt ions may be the determinative condition for the occurrence of the phenomena". VybÃral + Vorácek2007
Reilly quotes Professor Luc Montagnier, a French virologist who co-discovered HIV and who won the Nobel Prize in 2008, made the radical claim ( 2009 ) that some bacterial DNA sequences are able to induce electromagnetic (EM) waves at high aqueous dilutions - if they were 'strongly agitated', a step 'critical for the generation of signals'.
He also cites "evidence of ultramolecular dilutions of histamine ability to inhibit basophil activation “in a reproducible fashion”" [ Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inlfamm Res 2004; 53:181-8]
These are the tip of the iceberg of papers relating to the micro-structure of water. I have a strong suspicion that water is far more sophisticated than the simple image that we have in our textbooks of tiny bouncy balls flying around at random.
Here is a simple starter on the micro structure of water.
The study of the micro-structure of water deserves scientific study. The trouble is that, because it is outside the mainstream, the people who do it tend to work on their own, and sometimes maybe their work leaves a little to be desired in terms of perfection. But the medical profession should never forget, and never, never repeat, what we did to poor Semmelweiss.
The essence of science is to say dogmatically, not "This is the case", but to ask, "Is this indeed the case?" In this debate, the question is, "Is it indeed the case that water has no nano-structure which is worthy of investigation?"
So there is something to the micro-structure of water that needs scientific investigation. Whether this will have any relevance to homoeopathic medicines we will have to wait and see.
What we do know is that homoeopathic physicians do meet a need. They have high patient satisfaction. Their medicines are not expensive. Above all, their medicines do not (cannot, in the view of the sceptics) cause side effects.
I do not agree with the request from my union, the BMA, to remove homoeopathy from the NHS. It should be allowed to continue, but under conditions of audit, covering all aspects of their practice: what diagnoses they are presented with, the success rates that they achieve, and their cost-effectiveness. When this evidence is collected, we will be able to make an evidence based decision on whether or not it is worthwhile for the NHS to continue to fund homoeopathic physicians.
This would seems a reasonable way to move forward on this issue.
Later blog on this.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Economic dinosaurs' death struggle in a swamp
The Very British Dude blog writes a critique of David Selbourne who is, we are told, a political philosopher and theorist. The Dude takes him to task for not being a free market fundamentalist, and attacks him for being a Commie. Whether the Commie tag is fair or not is up to David Selborne to decide. My interest is that this debate is so(ooo) last century. This Green feels like a newly-evolved mammal watching two dinosaurs engaged in a death struggle in a primeval swamp.
My 2p worth:
Dear Mr Dude
Is reality truly split into a binary choice between the free market and the command economy? That dichotomy is only possible to someone fitted with blinkers to cut out what is happening out there in the real world. You may find a reference to the real world if you look up "Externalities" in the index of whichever economics textbook you were raised on. In fact, aforesaid real world is the ultimate source of our water, food, shelter, energy and health. And those who study these things find that its ability to support us is diminishing. Inexorably.
Some people deal with unwelcome truth with denial and with Peter Simple derived satirical barbs. These attitudes and words can obscure, but cannot change the facts.
The choice we face in 2010 is not the 20th century debate between free market fundamentalism and the command economy. Our ideological choice now lies between ecological denial (which is necessary for free market fundamentalism ) and ecological economics, which requires a guided market - guided towards social cohesion and environmental sustainability.
The debate has moved on. But do feel free to continue to wrestle with a foe who died in 1989.
My 2p worth:
Dear Mr Dude
Is reality truly split into a binary choice between the free market and the command economy? That dichotomy is only possible to someone fitted with blinkers to cut out what is happening out there in the real world. You may find a reference to the real world if you look up "Externalities" in the index of whichever economics textbook you were raised on. In fact, aforesaid real world is the ultimate source of our water, food, shelter, energy and health. And those who study these things find that its ability to support us is diminishing. Inexorably.
Some people deal with unwelcome truth with denial and with Peter Simple derived satirical barbs. These attitudes and words can obscure, but cannot change the facts.
The choice we face in 2010 is not the 20th century debate between free market fundamentalism and the command economy. Our ideological choice now lies between ecological denial (which is necessary for free market fundamentalism ) and ecological economics, which requires a guided market - guided towards social cohesion and environmental sustainability.
The debate has moved on. But do feel free to continue to wrestle with a foe who died in 1989.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Debate on the Debategraph.
This is the Nuclear bit of the Debategraph, which is a huge improvement on email list discussions, which are linear and confusing. The more web-like structure of the Debategraph - which is a form of wiki - comes more close to representing a system. Highly recommended.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Brighton Pavilion: an encounter with Charlotte Vere, the Conservative Candidate
I went to Brighton yesterday, nine and a half hours on the train, but all worth it. In Brighton I had the pleasure of meeting the Conservative candidate, Charlotte Vere, at her street stall. Business was quiet for the Tories, so I introduced myself as DocRichard (we have been having an interchange of tweets), and we had a nice chat for four or five minutes, covering social breakdown, economic divergence, the philosophy of science, the question of human existence, and the ideology of individualism. I regret that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the iniquity of FPTP, though i may have mentioned it in passing. usually do.
I opened with the questions that I had been putting to her (@CharlotteV) on Twitter about greater social equality. Was she familiar with the Spirit Level? No, she had not read it. Which, coming from a would-be MP in 2010, is rather like a would-be surgeon admitting that he had not looked at Gray's Anatomy. I explained that it showed on the basis of epidemiological science that the Rich Poor Gap was the root cause of all the social problems encapsulated in the phrase "Broken Britain". David Cameron on R4Today had got the direction of causality totally back to front. She countered that she doubted that there was "scientific proof". I explained that science does not do proof, but that the Equality Trust's data, just like climate science, is well beyond reasonable denial.
Charlotte scorns the idea of stooping to using money to address poverty, which is slightly counter-intuitive. I think she thinks that Citizen's Income is just throwing money at people who would not have the faintest idea of knowing how to invest it on the Stock Market. I explained that the basic problem is the inherent divergence implicit in the debt-interest method of creating money.
She was a little taken aback when I pointed out that Citizen's Income was already being implemented in Namibia, Alaska and Brazil, and that some Conservative thinkers (including Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman) had endorsed CI. "What", she asked, "is the rationale for CI?" I explained that each human being alive on the planet required an area of land in order to exist, that we see this as a basic human right, and that the CI is a proxy for the product of this land. Time did not permit me to develop points regarding the administrative costs of the present dysfunctional welfare system that she supports, nor its role in locking people into poverty and unemployment.
It is regrettable that the Green Wage Subsidy approach to Basic income was rejected by the conservative tendency within the Green Party, because Charlotte will doubtless persist in using the something-for-nothing canard that emboggers the discussion of CI. In fact, CI in this election is presented in our manifesto as just an aspiration, and so the GWS, far from being a diversion, is a way of bringing CI forward more quickly.
We touched on the philosophy of individualism, but I had no time to expand on its totally unscientific nature.
Charlotte is all right really (everyone is all right really). I would not say she was sanctimonious because I dislike personal attacks in politics, but she certainly is an old-style Tory, reminding me of every Tory councillor that I shared Woodspring District Council with - exuding from every pore the self-arrogated absolute conviction of their hereditary right to rule, instantly dismissive of any thought or view of the world apart from her own individual standpoint. In debate she relies heavily on the Straw Man fallacy, representing Greens as green on the outside, reds on the inside. Sadly, she did not use the "watermelon" phrase that encapsulates this idea, as I like to respond that I would rather be a watermelon than a baboon's bottom.
For the people of Brighton Pavilion, the crucial choice is between Caroline Lucas and Charlotte Vere. Labour, like the LibDems, are also-rans, although every LibLab vote carries with it the risk of letting the Tory in. It is a no-brainer: Charlotte would be just another faceless face on the Tory back-benches; Caroline will be a mould-destroying blast of fresh air in the corridors of Parliament, sweeping away the cobwebs of political decadence and old-fashioned, decrepit political ideologies by her sheer presence.
The officers on Woodspring told me that as soon as I was elected, the Tories were begging them to advise on green measures to bring in. There is a deep ambivalence about Greens, on the part of the old LibLabCon parties; publicly, they are disdainful of us. Privately, they are terrified of us.
I met up with the local Greens, who are in good heart and fizzing with energy, leafletted Stamford Avenue, had a lovely time canvassing good people on the streets, and went home again, which was stupid, I should have stayed on for Sunday canvassing too, but I was missing my trees and my Humanure toilet construction project, and I don't like cities much even such an excellent one as Brighton.
Friday, March 19, 2010
BBC School Question Time at Taunton School
Yesterday evening I was invited to be in the audience of Taunton School BBC Question Time event to represent the Green Party. This is the third election related public meeting for me this week; busy, considering I am not a candidate.
The panel consisted of a student chair (who did well, considering) and three students, two of whom were confident, considering their tender years, and one decidedly over-confident. The best way to describe him is to say that he makes William Hague the Younger look positively inhibited. The other male participant was of military stock, and was modelled on that comedian whose name evades me, the one who is really really miserable and grumpy, you know, the one who is sometimes on that patchy TV show hosted by Dara O'Briain. Jack Dee, that's the one.
Also on the panel was the great Craig Murray, possibly the only diplomat of principle, who blew the whistle on torture in Uzbekistan, and was kicked out by our covertly torture-endorsing Foreign Office for his pains.
Alan Sked was on the other end of the panel. He founded the organisation that turned into UKIP, but left when it turned into the crypto-racist party that it now is. He was quite reasonable.
We had an electronic voting system, which was interesting, especially when it showed a majority in favour of withdrawal from Afghanistan, excellent considering that the audience was privileged public-school middle class. I weighed in with the Opium Argument: "The Green Party always was and still is against the war, but paradoxically, we offer the key to success and honourable withdrawal: buy the opium, and use it as medicine in Africa, where 6 million people every year die of cancer with no pain relief. We have been putting this case to Government, and their pathetic response is that some of it might leak onto the black market." The audience took the point that the Government line is without merit, given that ALL of it is currently going to the black market. Craig Murray backed this up, adding that the Big Pharmaceutical companies need to keep opiates in short supply in order to keep prices up.
I see that there is a letter in today's Guardian about buying the opium. The meme is spreading. Pity it is beyond the wit of any investigative journalists to take an interest in this aspect of the war.
Jack Dee responded that it is easy for the Green Party to speak about war, because it has never been in power, which gave me an opportunity to lash out at the disgusting, sub-democratic travesty of an electoral system that is the First Past the Post system. Which has got to go.
Voter turnout was debated, but I did not get an opportunity to mention that turnout is inversely proportional to majority, so Proportional Representation will increase voter engagement.
Local issues came up: the Government requirement that 20,000 houses must be built in Taunton. I was sitting next to Cllr. Alan Debenham, an indomitable Green Party member, who balanced the need for housing with the need for sensitive development, and criticised the unpleasant nature of government by diktat.
Immigration came up, with some pretty raw opinions coming through, especially from William Hague minor. I put forward the points that to accept people seeking asylum from torture, imprisonment and political oppression in other countries is of the essence of all that is good about being British. Also the point that we must look to the causes of immigration:
My last opportunity to comment was when the female student panellists, who I must say was of a most harmonious appearance, mentioned "Broken Britain". I came back with a mention of The Spirit Level, which relates all manner of social and medical problems to the Rich Poor Gap (RPG). This book truly is a world-changing work. You could see that this was unwelcome news. We are going to have to work hard to get this point across, because it seems Too Good to Be True. How to phrase it without seeming to be snake oil salespersons? (Actually, snake oil is probably good for arthritis, being rich in eicosapentaenoic acid. Bad for the snakes though).
There was a brisk discussion of the erosion of civil liberty under Labour. This is interesting. The concern about the desire of Government to exert command and control over the people is not limited to greens, lefties and anarchists. The libertarian and conservative right are also worried. Rightly. No less than 300 agencies are empowered to enter our homes. 650,000 people were stopped and searched under War on Terror legislation, of whom 200 were charged, mainly because the search turned up a bit of dope. No terrorists found. We should form an alliance on this matter. Green ideology surpasses the old cast-iron caste-divisions of classical left and right. I envision a mass protest against the many different Government abuses, from civil liberty to FPTP to the war in Afghanistan, all mediated through the General Pause.
Craig mentioned the dismal fact that all 3 major parties agree on the major issues (warmongering, dys-economics), so the Leader's Debate on Telly is going to be the political equivalent of Miss World.
So there we have it. A public school debate rich with radical and green overtones. Interesting times.
The panel consisted of a student chair (who did well, considering) and three students, two of whom were confident, considering their tender years, and one decidedly over-confident. The best way to describe him is to say that he makes William Hague the Younger look positively inhibited. The other male participant was of military stock, and was modelled on that comedian whose name evades me, the one who is really really miserable and grumpy, you know, the one who is sometimes on that patchy TV show hosted by Dara O'Briain. Jack Dee, that's the one.
Also on the panel was the great Craig Murray, possibly the only diplomat of principle, who blew the whistle on torture in Uzbekistan, and was kicked out by our covertly torture-endorsing Foreign Office for his pains.
Alan Sked was on the other end of the panel. He founded the organisation that turned into UKIP, but left when it turned into the crypto-racist party that it now is. He was quite reasonable.
We had an electronic voting system, which was interesting, especially when it showed a majority in favour of withdrawal from Afghanistan, excellent considering that the audience was privileged public-school middle class. I weighed in with the Opium Argument: "The Green Party always was and still is against the war, but paradoxically, we offer the key to success and honourable withdrawal: buy the opium, and use it as medicine in Africa, where 6 million people every year die of cancer with no pain relief. We have been putting this case to Government, and their pathetic response is that some of it might leak onto the black market." The audience took the point that the Government line is without merit, given that ALL of it is currently going to the black market. Craig Murray backed this up, adding that the Big Pharmaceutical companies need to keep opiates in short supply in order to keep prices up.
I see that there is a letter in today's Guardian about buying the opium. The meme is spreading. Pity it is beyond the wit of any investigative journalists to take an interest in this aspect of the war.
Jack Dee responded that it is easy for the Green Party to speak about war, because it has never been in power, which gave me an opportunity to lash out at the disgusting, sub-democratic travesty of an electoral system that is the First Past the Post system. Which has got to go.
Voter turnout was debated, but I did not get an opportunity to mention that turnout is inversely proportional to majority, so Proportional Representation will increase voter engagement.
Local issues came up: the Government requirement that 20,000 houses must be built in Taunton. I was sitting next to Cllr. Alan Debenham, an indomitable Green Party member, who balanced the need for housing with the need for sensitive development, and criticised the unpleasant nature of government by diktat.
Immigration came up, with some pretty raw opinions coming through, especially from William Hague minor. I put forward the points that to accept people seeking asylum from torture, imprisonment and political oppression in other countries is of the essence of all that is good about being British. Also the point that we must look to the causes of immigration:
- War. Many immigrants are boomeranging from our bloodthirsty and piratical foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Torture and political oppression, which would be ameliorate by the Green Party's Global Index of Human Rights.
My last opportunity to comment was when the female student panellists, who I must say was of a most harmonious appearance, mentioned "Broken Britain". I came back with a mention of The Spirit Level, which relates all manner of social and medical problems to the Rich Poor Gap (RPG). This book truly is a world-changing work. You could see that this was unwelcome news. We are going to have to work hard to get this point across, because it seems Too Good to Be True. How to phrase it without seeming to be snake oil salespersons? (Actually, snake oil is probably good for arthritis, being rich in eicosapentaenoic acid. Bad for the snakes though).
There was a brisk discussion of the erosion of civil liberty under Labour. This is interesting. The concern about the desire of Government to exert command and control over the people is not limited to greens, lefties and anarchists. The libertarian and conservative right are also worried. Rightly. No less than 300 agencies are empowered to enter our homes. 650,000 people were stopped and searched under War on Terror legislation, of whom 200 were charged, mainly because the search turned up a bit of dope. No terrorists found. We should form an alliance on this matter. Green ideology surpasses the old cast-iron caste-divisions of classical left and right. I envision a mass protest against the many different Government abuses, from civil liberty to FPTP to the war in Afghanistan, all mediated through the General Pause.
Craig mentioned the dismal fact that all 3 major parties agree on the major issues (warmongering, dys-economics), so the Leader's Debate on Telly is going to be the political equivalent of Miss World.
So there we have it. A public school debate rich with radical and green overtones. Interesting times.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Nigel Farage insults EU President of Council: punish him with cold debate
I see that Nigel Farage MEP may be summoned for his outrageous rudeness to Herman Van Rampuy. Farrage will become wet with smugness that if it goes ahead. It will give him more media attention, and an opportunity to rant about EU as a threat to free speech. To be banned from the EU Parliament would give him a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure.
Farrage's attack is a classic example of the debating style of extreme right wingers. They major in ad homs and personal abuse. To try to exchange insults with a free market fundamentalist would be as if to enter a crapping contest with an elephant.
Why are extreme conservatives like this? The reason is that as fundamentalists, they believe that their point of view is absolutely and completely right. They scorn any kind of relativism, and they regard anyone who differs from their POV as 100% wrong, and stupid with it. They regard the rest of humanity with contempt, and for them, society does not exist.. The EU to them is a socialist plot, a deep conspiracy dreamed up by unnamed defeated Communists who went underground in 1991.
The best punishment for Farage would be somehow to compel him to debate the philosophical basis of his faith in such a way that he was unable to use personal abuse. His presupposition, that the individual human being is the basic building block of economic reality, if not of all reality, would be shown to be absurd. The out-workings of his philosophy, from his boorish and contemptible words in Parliament, to the monstrous, debt-based free market economy that is predicated on his philosophy, will be exposed as the dysfunctional behaviours that they really are.
Farrage's attack is a classic example of the debating style of extreme right wingers. They major in ad homs and personal abuse. To try to exchange insults with a free market fundamentalist would be as if to enter a crapping contest with an elephant.
Why are extreme conservatives like this? The reason is that as fundamentalists, they believe that their point of view is absolutely and completely right. They scorn any kind of relativism, and they regard anyone who differs from their POV as 100% wrong, and stupid with it. They regard the rest of humanity with contempt, and for them, society does not exist.. The EU to them is a socialist plot, a deep conspiracy dreamed up by unnamed defeated Communists who went underground in 1991.
The best punishment for Farage would be somehow to compel him to debate the philosophical basis of his faith in such a way that he was unable to use personal abuse. His presupposition, that the individual human being is the basic building block of economic reality, if not of all reality, would be shown to be absurd. The out-workings of his philosophy, from his boorish and contemptible words in Parliament, to the monstrous, debt-based free market economy that is predicated on his philosophy, will be exposed as the dysfunctional behaviours that they really are.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Population Problem: is it all down to consumption patterns?
OK.
Hokay.
So.
Yesterday I showed that mathematics, the most certain modality of knowledge that we have, shows that it is impossible for any physical system to sustain a doubling increase, an exponential function, indefinitely. The numbers simply become unfeasibly large.
This is absolutely certain, and there are not many absolutely certain things in existence in our human world.
Now. World population numbers are doubling, with a doubling time between 1960 and 1999 of 39 years.
The natural world that we depend on for life cannot sustain this kind of growth. When doubling growth it does happen in nature, what happens is that the growing population numbers crash, and then become chaotic. This is what we have to look forward to as a human race, unless we use our consciousness and our rationality to modify our behaviour. Which is a big challenge, because the urge to reproduce is a basic instinct, and any suggestion that we should modify this urge will cause a hysterical outcry that will make the recent outpourings of the US Republican Party over universal health care look like a cool, calm and reasoned debate by comparison.
The first hurdle that we have to get over is this one, from our own side:
"It's not population numbers, it is consumption patterns that we have to worry about".
(Note the use of the either/or device, as in "Never Mind the Dog Poo, what about the Litter?").
Sadly, the otherwise excellent George Monbiot goes for this approach in his recent treatment of population. He quotes the otherwise wobbly James Lovelock who says: “...those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth". In reply George says "it’s Lovelock who is being ignorant and irrational ".
How wonderful it is to see the interaction of great minds.
George's the formula is: I=C x A x T:
Total environmental Impact should be measured as the number of Consumers times Affluence times Technology.
So far, so good. Numbers are numbers. Affluence is a measure of the amount of goods each person consumes. And technology means the type of technology used to produce the goods, fossil fuels being the worst, and solar being the best. (Relatively: nothing is perfect, and even solar technology has some negative environmental impact).
So George piles in to attack the manifest evils of consumerism, and concludes
"It’s time we had the guts to name the problem.
It’s not sex; it’s money.
It’s not the poor; it’s the rich".
There is no doubt that consumerism is a huge problem that must be addressed, no doubt at all. But the fact is that Affluence and the Technology do not negate the number of Consumers.
He's doing the DogPoo/Litter fallacy again - a variant of the Red Herring fallacy.
It really is time that we begin to accept that we live in, and are part of, a system, and must therefore think in terms of systems. Everything is interconnected. We cannot abstract the things we happen to like or dislike, and discount the rest.
This is a highly emotionally charged debate, and we see above that even the best minds can misfire in the heat.
The following thought experiment does deal with this I = C x A x T question, though in practice nothing will end this debate, which is only just beginnng.
Imagine a world where every last individual has the best possible ecological footprint. They are fully solarised, energy waste is a thing of the past, recycling is 100%, all is perfect.
Can this population continue to grow? No it cannot, because growth, even at a tiny rate, will eventually produce doubling, and exponential growth, and that is mathematically impossible in a finite space, which is what this planet is; a finite space.
Even if the population were magically able to live on air alone (as some seriously believe is possible), there would still be a limiting factor, the point at which the human population stood shoulder to shoulder on every piece of land (and water - I have heard a Green Party member
arguing that we can simply take to houseboats to solve the population problem) on the planet.
QED. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Which is what we set out to prove.
And it is a proof. Here are the steps. There are two steps, one step and another step. Sorry it is so complex.
1 Sustained exponential growth into a limited physical system is an impossibility.
2 Even with minimum or even zero ecological footprint, it remains the case that sustained exponential growth into a limited physical system is an impossibility.
There we have it. A cast iron case, logically impeccable. An argument, as it were, with no moving parts.
And yet there will still be those who will come forward to argue that it is wrong even to think these thoughts.
Tomorrow: Carrying Capacity.
Hokay.
So.
Yesterday I showed that mathematics, the most certain modality of knowledge that we have, shows that it is impossible for any physical system to sustain a doubling increase, an exponential function, indefinitely. The numbers simply become unfeasibly large.
This is absolutely certain, and there are not many absolutely certain things in existence in our human world.
Now. World population numbers are doubling, with a doubling time between 1960 and 1999 of 39 years.
The natural world that we depend on for life cannot sustain this kind of growth. When doubling growth it does happen in nature, what happens is that the growing population numbers crash, and then become chaotic. This is what we have to look forward to as a human race, unless we use our consciousness and our rationality to modify our behaviour. Which is a big challenge, because the urge to reproduce is a basic instinct, and any suggestion that we should modify this urge will cause a hysterical outcry that will make the recent outpourings of the US Republican Party over universal health care look like a cool, calm and reasoned debate by comparison.
The first hurdle that we have to get over is this one, from our own side:
"It's not population numbers, it is consumption patterns that we have to worry about".
(Note the use of the either/or device, as in "Never Mind the Dog Poo, what about the Litter?").
Sadly, the otherwise excellent George Monbiot goes for this approach in his recent treatment of population. He quotes the otherwise wobbly James Lovelock who says: “...those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth". In reply George says "it’s Lovelock who is being ignorant and irrational ".
How wonderful it is to see the interaction of great minds.
George's the formula is: I=C x A x T:
Total environmental Impact should be measured as the number of Consumers times Affluence times Technology.
So far, so good. Numbers are numbers. Affluence is a measure of the amount of goods each person consumes. And technology means the type of technology used to produce the goods, fossil fuels being the worst, and solar being the best. (Relatively: nothing is perfect, and even solar technology has some negative environmental impact).
So George piles in to attack the manifest evils of consumerism, and concludes
"It’s time we had the guts to name the problem.
It’s not sex; it’s money.
It’s not the poor; it’s the rich".
There is no doubt that consumerism is a huge problem that must be addressed, no doubt at all. But the fact is that Affluence and the Technology do not negate the number of Consumers.
He's doing the DogPoo/Litter fallacy again - a variant of the Red Herring fallacy.
It really is time that we begin to accept that we live in, and are part of, a system, and must therefore think in terms of systems. Everything is interconnected. We cannot abstract the things we happen to like or dislike, and discount the rest.
This is a highly emotionally charged debate, and we see above that even the best minds can misfire in the heat.
The following thought experiment does deal with this I = C x A x T question, though in practice nothing will end this debate, which is only just beginnng.
Imagine a world where every last individual has the best possible ecological footprint. They are fully solarised, energy waste is a thing of the past, recycling is 100%, all is perfect.
Can this population continue to grow? No it cannot, because growth, even at a tiny rate, will eventually produce doubling, and exponential growth, and that is mathematically impossible in a finite space, which is what this planet is; a finite space.
Even if the population were magically able to live on air alone (as some seriously believe is possible), there would still be a limiting factor, the point at which the human population stood shoulder to shoulder on every piece of land (and water - I have heard a Green Party member
arguing that we can simply take to houseboats to solve the population problem) on the planet.
QED. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Which is what we set out to prove.
And it is a proof. Here are the steps. There are two steps, one step and another step. Sorry it is so complex.
1 Sustained exponential growth into a limited physical system is an impossibility.
2 Even with minimum or even zero ecological footprint, it remains the case that sustained exponential growth into a limited physical system is an impossibility.
There we have it. A cast iron case, logically impeccable. An argument, as it were, with no moving parts.
And yet there will still be those who will come forward to argue that it is wrong even to think these thoughts.
Tomorrow: Carrying Capacity.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
World Population: the Biggest Question of All
The question of what to do about the ever-increasing world population of humans is edging ever closer to the surface of political debate. It is the most emotionally charged topic of all time, because it involves an encounter between the irresistible force of mathematical exponential series, and the immovable object of individual human liberty.
The Green Party mentioned it once in a Conference debate, and we did not get away with it. We were damned to hell by the tabloids, and banished to the wilderness.
Things have changed now. Journalists are beginning to ask why no politician ever mentions population. (Answer: see above). Commenters are saying "Never mind the CO2, it is the population increase that we need to worry about". It is quite possible that this is an elephant trap that they are setting, because they will go all libertarian on anyone who dares to pick up their gauntlet.
The man would be an idiot to take up this challenge.
So here I go.
First, an axiom (self-evident truth):
It is impossible to expand forever into a finite space.
(I met someone who was unwilling to accept this axiom, because it implied illiberal thinking. You see?)
Second, the mathematics of exponential growth.
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-4096-8192-16384- &c.
That is a doubling series, and in 15 steps we have gone from 1 to 16,384 and rising. That is what happens if we keep on doubling a number. It is called exponential growth.
The doubling time for world population
between 1881 and 1960 was 79 years,
and for the years
between 1960 and 1999 was 39 years.
In exponential series, doubling times tend to fall by half in each round of doubling.
Since we live on a finite planet, we cannot go on with doubling population. Leaving aside the question of ecological footprint, there would come a time when we would be standing shoulder to shoulder on every piece of land on the planet, not just on the Isle of Wight.
Mathematically and ecologically, doubling population growth forever is a physical impossibility. It cannot happen. It is a dumb idea. It is nonsense. All growth must stop at some point.
And yet, to say that population growth must be stopped is intensely controversial.
Here is a simple biological model. Here is a Petri Dish.
The spots are bacteria.
(I got the photo from Richard Wiseman. Thanks Richard. I don't know where he got it from).
They grow and grow until one of, or a combination of, three things happens:
- They run out of nutrients
- They are poisoned by their own excretions
- They come up against the side of the Petri dish.
His message is:
"The greatest shortcoming of the Human Race is the Inability to understand the Exponential function".
I feel tired already. I'm going to stop now and have a little lie down, to see if anyone starts calling me a fascist who is reducing humanity to mere numbers, in the comment slot. There may not be any comments, because I have turned off the Anonymous comment facility.
The argument will be continued tomorrow: "Should we curb population, consumption, or both? "
*My local pedant points our that this should read " It is impossible to expand forever at a constant rate into a finite space" because it is possible to expand the series 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+&c forever into a finite space. Or is it?
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Climate Change Nihilism
Over on the Guardian Environment Blog, MangoJuice agrees :
that the globe is warming at a rate not seen in human history
that the polluting effect of the industrialised nations is the majority cause.
that it is grossly negligent and criminal not to harness all the free energy the sun, the wind and sea provide.
But MangoJuice is annoyed with the way some people go on about it
Well, pardon us for mentioning that business as usual means drought, flood, extreme weather, loss of low-lying fertile land and all the rest of it. Even putting down this little list makes me feel that I may be stepping on someone's toes.
"Best not to mention global warming. I mentioned it once, and they said I sounded like a prophet of doom".
But then Mango asks us to face facts and realise that no matter how loud and often we shout it is not going to make much of a difference. Global carbon emissions are going to rise and there is naff all you can do about it. The tipping point is almost upon us if not already here, and Mango asks: How can we efficiently get the green house gases out of the atmosphere and stored safely?
Mango, humanity is in a bit of a hole, climate-wise.
The First Law of Not Being in a Hole is - Stop Digging.
There is no logic in trying to sequester CO2 while the emissions are going full blast.
We can indeed reduce emissions, in a range of ways that starts with turning down the central heating and full loft insulation, going on all the way to Desertec and the HVDC supergrid.
And, yes, we can make a start on CO2 sequestration with reafforestation.
Third, there is a possibility that temperatures may not rise as fast as the models predict.
I am noticing that there is a real vogue for people to comment that It's All Too Bad, They'll Never Listen, You Wanna Give Up Mate, Like Me, That's the Way To Go.
Green activism is like having a parachute on a hang glider. It may or may not save your life, but in case of structural failure, it does serve to keep your mind occupied on the way down,
that the globe is warming at a rate not seen in human history
that the polluting effect of the industrialised nations is the majority cause.
that it is grossly negligent and criminal not to harness all the free energy the sun, the wind and sea provide.
But MangoJuice is annoyed with the way some people go on about it
Well, pardon us for mentioning that business as usual means drought, flood, extreme weather, loss of low-lying fertile land and all the rest of it. Even putting down this little list makes me feel that I may be stepping on someone's toes.
"Best not to mention global warming. I mentioned it once, and they said I sounded like a prophet of doom".
But then Mango asks us to face facts and realise that no matter how loud and often we shout it is not going to make much of a difference. Global carbon emissions are going to rise and there is naff all you can do about it. The tipping point is almost upon us if not already here, and Mango asks: How can we efficiently get the green house gases out of the atmosphere and stored safely?
Mango, humanity is in a bit of a hole, climate-wise.
The First Law of Not Being in a Hole is - Stop Digging.
There is no logic in trying to sequester CO2 while the emissions are going full blast.
We can indeed reduce emissions, in a range of ways that starts with turning down the central heating and full loft insulation, going on all the way to Desertec and the HVDC supergrid.
And, yes, we can make a start on CO2 sequestration with reafforestation.
Third, there is a possibility that temperatures may not rise as fast as the models predict.
I am noticing that there is a real vogue for people to comment that It's All Too Bad, They'll Never Listen, You Wanna Give Up Mate, Like Me, That's the Way To Go.
Green activism is like having a parachute on a hang glider. It may or may not save your life, but in case of structural failure, it does serve to keep your mind occupied on the way down,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
