Energy and Climate – Abu Dhabi and Europe.

[iconoclast]

Aedes,

So i said that all the world's religious, nationalist and capitalist. you give me North Korea, Sudan and the Vatican State - the exception rather than the rule. To produce an exhaustive list would be a little excessive just to support what is afterall a relatively uncontraversial statement. Many of your arguments are of this nature - and after you upbraided TAT for pretending to open-mindedness while in fact adducing any wild evidence in support of a determined skeptcism.

My whole argument is that the ideological dynaimics of society stand in the way of what we need to do - not just energy and climate but MDG's - you unreasonably refuse to accept this and then say:

'Because the people writing the goals are not the people spending the money.'

this is an ideological dynamic.

I understand. From your point of view you’ve got to hope that the moral argument is sufficient to overcome ‘insufficient commitment’ – for if you acknowledge that these problems are an ideological externality, they’re much more difficult to address.
Example: Climate change protester at the Make Poverty History rally – correct in terms of moral conscience, but conflicted on a meaningful level. ‘Make Wealth History? I don’t like the sound of that!’

that's you that is, so you say: ‘I mean why not just go and sterilize all the carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene -- that would eliminate CF, the most common genetic disease of white people, from our society. Of course that would mean sterilizing 1 in every 25 people, but who cares about morality when we have a scientific answer to how to eliminate CF?’

If there is a way to tackle CF – it’ll be scientific, but we won't be able to afford it! Off the top of my head I’d say some combination of genetic screening and gene therapy – as opposed to tying people down and cutting their nuts/uterus’s off. That said, I don’t know enough about the condition to speak authoritatively – but I do know there’s no scientific grounds for mass sterilization, and to attribute that to science is a baseless and specious argument you adduce simply to poke holes in an idea you don’t want to acknowledge, despite the fact YOU KNOW I’M RIGHT!

Just admit it, a.t.b, iconoclast.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Aedes,

Originally Posted by iconoclast

So i said that all the world's religious, nationalist and capitalist. you give me North Korea, Sudan and the Vatican State - the exception rather than the rule.

You said "all". I said "not all". And I still disagree with your point, but it would require more detailed discussion for you to demonstrate why you think, for instance, that Canada or New Zealand is a religious state and why I probably do not.

My whole argument is that the ideological dynaimics of society stand in the way of what we need to do - not just energy and climate but MDG's - you unreasonably refuse to accept this

Maybe if you gave a single example of an "ideological dynamic of society" then I could respond less generically.

and then you say:

'Because the people writing the goals are not the people spending the money.'

this is an ideological dynamic.

No, it's a practical dynamic. The MDGs were neither invented nor mandated by Congress, but they are (in large part) funded by Congress.

From your point of view you’ve got to hope that the moral argument is sufficient to overcome ‘insufficient commitment’ – for if you acknowledge that these problems are an ideological externality, they’re much more difficult to address.

As I said above, the practical argument should be sufficient as well, because it's in our practical best interest to achieve these goals.

Example: Climate change protester at the Make Poverty History rally – correct in terms of moral conscience, but conflicted on a meaningful level. ‘Make Wealth History? I don’t like the sound of that!’

that's you that is

I'm not making a moral argument or protest, and I have no idea how this example of yours has to do with me. I'm not some little protester here, nor am I some armchair philosopher. I'm arguing from professional experience in international health and development, and you're twisting this as if I'm some angry college kid.

If there is a way to tackle CF – it’ll be scientific, but we won't be able to afford it! Off the top of my head I’d say some combination of genetic screening and gene therapy – as opposed to tying people down and cutting their nuts/uterus’s off. That said, I don’t know enough about the condition to speak authoritatively – but I do know there’s no scientific grounds for mass sterilization

Yes, there is a scientific ground for that. It's not the only way we could tackle CF, but if for ha-has you mathematically modeled it, it would be perhaps the most efficient way of eliminating that gene.

to attribute that to science is a baseless and specious argument you adduce simply to poke holes in an idea you don’t want to acknowledge

no, it's not, it's a perfectly legitimate example of where a scientifically sound argument that could be easily demonstrated with a simple mathematical model and cost-effectiveness analysis would violate a very basic moral.

despite the fact YOU KNOW I’M RIGHT!

I'm sure you think you are. But even I, who champion science here more than most, and with a career in academic medicine and medical research, can hardly find anything to agree with in your ideas here.

But maybe it's because you haven't given us much more than generalities here. Let's hear how your utopia would work in real life. You have your ideal state, this scientific and rational utopia. Start by telling me how you'll deal with poverty and prejudice, then tell me how we'll deal with illegal immigration, then tell me how you'll deal with self-proclaimed religious leaders who pop up every now and then.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, You are nit-picking.

Making the ‘ought from is’ argument I said: ‘My philosophy begins with an understanding of evolution as the accumulation of function, and in these terms…’

Surely you know I’m summarizing a much broader understanding of evolution with emphasis on features significant to a particular argument. And yet you say: ‘evolution also involves loss of function’ – implying therefore my arguments are based on faulty premises. That might be a valid correction if ‘loss of function’ were significant to my argument, or important to your counter-argument. But loss of function isn’t at issue. It’s just a cheap shot. I’ll give another example:

I say: ‘Thus you are correct where you say that a sense of togetherness pre-dated the establishing of European nation states, but this sense was fundamentally religious in character.’

Your response is: ‘That's not true. The unification of Italy and of Germany in the 19th century were secular movements, the French Revolution was secular, the American Revolution was secular, the Russian Revolution was secular, and the Spanish revolution was secular.

You’re deliberately misunderstanding my point. On the one hand I’m talking about these issues in an evolutionary context – and would thus first put religious identity at the heart of society to explain the transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to multi-tribal and social ways of life, while on the other hand, above I said that: ‘considering the development of the concept of nation, we must go back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1650) – which ended the authority the Holy Roman Empire and brought into being the first nation states.’

That so, Spain established statehood by driving out the Muslims 9th-14th century, Russia is Russian Orthodox and France is Roman Catholic. (Spanish Civil War – not revolution.) Furthermore, the American Revolution wasn’t secular. Not according to Paul Johnson who, in his authoritative work ‘A History of the American People’ writes: ‘As we have seen, America had been founded primarily for religious purposes, and the Great Awakening had been the original dynamic for the continental movement for independence…There is no question that the Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act, and that the Revolutionary War had the approbation of divine providence.’ (p.170)

The unification of Italy, and that of Germany in the 19th century might have been secular movements, I don’t know, but so what? They are wholly irrelevant to the point I made, that a religious sense of identity was central to the formation of the first nation states in the 17th century. You might as well have cited the reunification of Germany in the late 20th century – that was a secular movement too! But if you want modern examples: Pakistan. Israel. The Islamic Republic of Iran. Northern Ireland. Kosovo.

Not that these are relevant either. The point I’m trying to make is that the concept of nation is scientifically groundless – a concept that arose from a religious social context and persists today as a basis of analysis that does not allow a real relation to the world we inhabit. Example: President Bush ‘I walked away from Kyoto because it would damage America’s economy, you bet…’ (Tonight with Trevor McDonald. ITV1. 2005)

Please stop criticizing the brushwork and look at the picture – because, if you precede any argument with deliberate misunderstanding of the underlying premises - and employ phrases like 'your ideal state, this scientific and rational utopia' - it prejudices subsequent discussion to such a degree it would be futile to explain. Why, so you can poke holes in what could only be a speculative exercise? No, let's start from the VERY REAL problems we face - threats of extinction that cannot be addressed by the system you defend.

iconoclast.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Making the ‘ought from is’ argument I said: ‘My philosophy begins with an understanding of evolution as the accumulation of function, and in these terms…’

And again, if you begin your philosophy with something that's wrong, then what does that mean for all that follows? You can have whatever understanding of evolution you want. But if accumulation of function is your premise, then you're wrong. I've spent too much damn time in my life actually doing evolutionary biology research, to humor abstract arguments about evolution that bear little resemblance to evolutionary science.

Surely you know I’m summarizing a much broader understanding of evolution with emphasis on features significant to a particular argument.

Yes, I realize that. But you're doing it sufficiently selectively that your whole premise is wrong.

And yet you say: ‘evolution also involves loss of function’ – implying therefore my arguments are based on faulty premises.

Yes, that IS what I'm saying, though to be more complete it's not simply because you selectively ignore loss of function; rather, it's because you view evolution solely in terms of those superficial phenotypes that support your premise, neglecting all those that don't, and further neglecting the fact that evolution is a genetic phenomenon with highly variable phenotypic consequences.

That might be a valid correction if ‘loss of function’ were significant to my argument, or important to your counter-argument. But loss of function isn’t at issue.

Well, if evolution is significant to your argument then loss of function also must be. We have lost certain functions since departing from our primate ancestors. And we haven't lost some functions that critically impede us from achieving this scientific utopia of yours (about which you still haven't provided details).

It’s just a cheap shot.

You haven't directly answered a single challenge of mine other than naming centuries-old states as examples of religious states. Of the modern nation states you've named, ONLY Iran is self-defined religiously; not even Israel is, and it so happens that the Iranian populace is among the least religious and most secular of any country in the Muslim world. Beyond this quibble, which doesn't get to the actual matter of whether they're built on some objectionable ideology, you haven't expanded on the generalities of your theory at all, and instead of making a real conversation about this you're just getting defensive and arguing about the argument.

If you're going to put forth a philosophical theory here, you'd better be ready to take critique. I've put forth valid critiques based on a LOT of experience in several fields you discuss. But no, my critiques are a cheap shot. I'm interested to hear your ideas developed. But you need to find another audience if approval is what you're after.

[iconoclast]

But you need to find another audience if approval is what you're after.

No, just a fair hearing.

Evolution is not accumulation of function -- it's genetic change over time, which includes loss of function.

Evolution is in fact a scientific theory describing a process of ...

Cheap shot!

if you're going to pick apart my words this way i'm not inclined to put my arguments forward - simply to be ridiculed. the ball's in your court - if you think you can engage in a constructive way, great, because i'd enjoy comment from someone of your obvious intelligence and undoubted professional experience.

atb, iconoclast.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, please, tell me what you think of this.


In the logic game ‘showing pennies’ two players each show a coin simultaneously. If both coins are the same, heads or tails, player 1 pockets the coins, and if they are mixed player 2 keeps the coins. If the object is to gain coins, the best strategy each can adopt is to guess what the other player will show. The probability of guessing correctly is the same – 1:2 for each player.

But what if player 1 could know what player 2 would show? It would be illogical to continue with a strategy based on guesswork. Logically, player 1 should use this knowledge – arranging his own coin to win the game, and given perfect knowledge should win every game. But could he be made to choose the unwise strategy? The experiments of the social psychologist Solomon Asch suggest he could.

‘In Asch’s standard procedure, a single subject was seated at a table with a group of 7 – 9 others (all confederates of the experimenter.) The group was shown one card with three vertical lines of different lengths, and members of the group were asked to judge which of the lines was the same length as a line on another card. Each individual announced his or her answer in turn, and the subject was seated second to last. The correct judgments were obvious and on most trials everyone gave the same (correct) response. But unknown to the subject, on several predetermined critical trials the confederates had been instructed to give the wrong answer.
The results were striking. Even though the correct answer was obvious, the average subject conformed to the group consensus on 32% of the critical trials, and 74% of subjects conformed at least once.’ (Psychology. Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith and Bem. 1993. p.759-60)

Here a group of strangers cause 74% of subjects to override their own judgment in obvious and apparent matters of fact – and 32% to abandon their own judgment altogether.

Imagine then that distant ancestors of player 1 had guessed the outcome of all the games, and had written this down and passed it on from generation to generation as if it were the absolute truth. When player 1 was born, with deep seriousness they taught him this series of heads and tails so that he knew it by heart. They lavished praise upon him when he got it right and threatened and beat him if he got it wrong. Worse yet if he dared to question the validity of the series – he would face being punished and ostracized from the group.

Now, given perfect knowledge of the outcome of each game it’s unlikely he would use this knowledge. Even as the games progressed and he lost coins he clearly could have won had he employed knowledge of the outcome – Asch’s experiments suggest he would remain bound by social expectation.

This analogy illustrates the effect of religion on the use of the valid knowledge provided by a modern scientific understanding of reality. Of course, in reality it’s far more complicated. It’s not patently obvious that religion is at the root of the problems faced by humankind, but can sometimes appear to be the last bastion of comfort and hope in an increasingly hard and troubled world. Equally, it’s not obvious that a scientific understanding of reality provides a better way. Rather, as religiously opposed groups use scientific knowledge as a tool to create ever more deadly weapons it can seem that science itself is the enemy.

It’s therefore important it be recognized that this describes science used as a tool by religiously opposed groups in political, economic and military competition – not science recognized as valid knowledge and accepted as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.
In scientific terms there are no human groups. Because the people of any one ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ group can produce fertile offspring with the people of another, there is no fundamental validity to the divisions between people. Humankind is a single species occupying a single planetary environment.

Therefore, in scientific terms there are no nation states. Nations are human constructions – lines drawn on maps, re-drawn by warfare between religiously defined groups. This can be shown to be accurate with reference to historical record – just as it can be shown that the main features of capitalism were developed by religious authorities in order to pay mercenary armies to fight in the Crusades – a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims for possession of the ‘Holy Land.’

Together, religion, nation and capitalism do not allow for recognition of the truth-value of scientific knowledge – and this is the root cause of extinction threats now mounting like huge dark clouds on the horizon. In order of immanence they are the energy crisis, climate change and environmental degradation. Overpopulation is also a threat in that it exacerbates all these.

For example, in the 1950’s the American President (Eisenhower) was briefed on the theory of climate change resulting from carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere from transport and industry powered by fossil fuels. The theory was gleaned from research in astrophysics – attempting to explain the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In this regard the theory is wholly uncontroversial and soon became the accepted explanation, whereas applied to Earth the science has been ignored, distorted and denied for more than half a century.

After publicly denying any link between industry and climate change, in 2005, President George W. Bush explained to British television news anchorman Trevor McDonald that he refused to sign up to the Kyoto agreement, and refused to order cuts in greenhouse gas emissions because it would damage America’s economy.

This is not because alternate technologies are unavailable. 120 years ago, in 1890, Professor Paul La Cour used wind generated electricity to electrolyze an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide to produce a hydrogen/oxygen gas he used to heat and light the high school in Askov, Denmark where he worked. 70 years ago, in 1939, Rudolph Erren, (a German-Jew who fled to Britain to escape the Nazi’s) converted scores of trucks to run on hydrogen fuel, and recommended using excess capacity of generated electricity to create hydrogen for this purpose. Nonetheless, this knowledge and these technologies have still not been applied.

In the second paragraph we said ‘But what if player 1 could know what player 2 would show? It would be illogical to continue with a strategy based on guesswork. Logically, player 1 should use this knowledge – arranging his own coin to win the game, and given perfect knowledge should win every game.’

Science is not perfect knowledge – it’s valid knowledge, but less than a complete understanding of reality. That so, even if player 1 could only know half the time what player 2 would show, he could win all the games of which he has knowledge and half the others – giving him 3:4 of the coins.

Therefore, in order to increase our probability of survival it’s vitally important to acknowledge and act in relation to what science does know, for in this way we act in increasing accord with the reality we inhabit. For this reason I have proposed that nations must form a global government constitutionally bound to honor a scientifically valid understanding of reality, and obligated to act to secure the continued existence of the human species.

If this doesn’t occur – humankind will loose all its coins, everything gained by those countless generations who came before us, and who we honor by upholding their best guess at what it’s all about – in face of opposition from those upholding other guesses.
It is illogical to continue with a strategy based on guesswork. We must have the courage to oppose the wrongful consensus – and aspire to become a rightful consensus meeting upon the level ground of a scientifically valid understanding of reality.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

This analogy illustrates the effect of religion on the use of the valid knowledge provided by a modern scientific understanding of reality. Of course, in reality it’s far more complicated. It’s not patently obvious that religion is at the root of the problems faced by humankind, but can sometimes appear to be the last bastion of comfort and hope in an increasingly hard and troubled world. Equally, it’s not obvious that a scientific understanding of reality provides a better way.

Look, I'm with you here, but it's not as simple as religion versus science, at least generically speaking. During early to mid medieval times science was valued far more highly and liberally in Islamic lands than in Christian lands. So here we have two geographic neighbors, both religious in their own way, and the Islamic one makes advances in medicine, astronomy, navigation, mathematics, and philosophy that didn't come about until centuries later in the Christian world (and only after a lot of cross-fertilization between the two cultures). And yet in modernity the opposite seems true -- the Christian-dominated world is now the epicenter of modern science, and the Islamic world is struggling to define itself.

My hypothesis (and this is not based on professional experience of mine, just my amateurish interest in the subject) is that it's not so much ideas that hold science back. It's other circumstances, especially socioeconomic and demographic, that influence both religion and science. You find that in times of hardship societies have less ingenuity and they turn more to religion. It's no wonder that science never really took off in Europe until the Renaissance (and later), as the society became more prosperous, more populous, developed much more stable states and governments, and by virtue of these successes they also gained access to the ideas from other places.

Now, I do think that there were some specific features in medieval Christianity that constrained science. Specifically, as classical philosophy became more and more incorporated into Christian theology, what was once science now became part of a religious cosmology. Thus, thinkers like Ptolemy and Aristotle and Galen became dogmatized, and scientific developments could be dangerous if they challenged church dogma.

Does this exist in modernity? Sure, to some degree, but a great deal has happened since then. I think modernity, or more strictly speaking postmodernity has an attitude of self-criticism and self-ridicule that has never existed before in human history. And this pertains especially to science. There is a secular skepticism of science that is actually stronger than the religious skepticism of science, and this hits me in my job all the time.

Why? It's not because of the failings of science, so much as it is the idea that humans have repeatedly overestimated and misused science. In a century of mind-boggling scientific advancement, we also have the Titanic, industrial genocides, nuclear bombs, oil spills, air pollution, fear of epidemics that we can't control, disasters like Katrina, and a growing public awareness of medical errors.

So now on a nearly daily basis I have to deal with patients who are interested in alternative therapies and practicioners, who are convinced that conventional medicine cannot help them, who are opposed to starting new medications, who look all kinds of **** up on the internet and directly challenge medical recommendations, etc. In the UK the situation is terrible with vaccinations, with skepticism of vaccines coming out of very soft science, leading to some of the lowest vaccine coverage rates in the developed world (and consequently pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks).

Again, none of this (or extremely little) is coming from religion. It's coming from a "new age" type secular culture in which even science and medicine themselves are seen as dogmatic, non-progressive ideologies.

In scientific terms there are no human groups.

Yes there are:

Because the people of any one ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ group can produce fertile offspring with the people of another, there is no fundamental validity to the divisions between people. Humankind is a single species occupying a single planetary environment.

We are one species, but humans can be divided in innumerable ways genetically. There are biomedical differences between people of different "races", genetic differences, and phylogenetic differences. That doesn't make these ethically important, but they ARE important. It makes more sense to screen Jews for Tay-Sachs disease and black people for sickle cell disease than the other way around. It makes more sense to treat hypertensive black people with diuretics rather than ACE inhibitors, and this is specifically because of the biology of hypertension in this group. These are a couple among MANY biological differences that separate people. They need not have moral or ethical importance, but it's not correct to say that there is no scientific difference between humans from different racial backgrounds. What is correct is that the different races in themselves don't constitute biologically definable groups; but insofar as they are descriptively definable, there ARE biological differences.

Therefore, in scientific terms there are no nation states.

What does science have to say about nation states? Nothing. Just as science has nothing to say about comic books. Nation states, kingdoms, empires, etc, are a form of sociopolitical organization that humans have chosen for themselves. Science doesn't inform this, nor does science invalidate it.

I have some historical disagreement with what you've written about the Crusades (which were only superficially religious -- and the only recognizable capitalism at the time came out of the mercantile states in northern Italy), but that's food for a different debate. But to be sure, much of the Crusades had to do with inter-Christian conflict, specifically the Papal domain versus the Byzantine domain, rather than conflict between Christians and Muslims. After all, the Crusades only happened because of the Schism earlier that century, and and ultimately it was the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople, not the Muslims.

That aside, I feel that natural science has no access to economic theories anyway, so no economic system is going to be born from science itself. We can be scientific about it, though, by evaluating ourselves and revising our system as time goes on.

Finally, just as you object against "artificial" divisions within humanity like "race" and like "nation states", one could just as easily object against a pan-humanism as scientifically baseless:

So what if we're all human? It's clearly biologically determined that we prioritize nuclear family over extended family, extended family over friends, friends over nation, and nation over world. We are socially relativistic. We congregate with "like" people, and this is true throughout the world. And we choose leaders with whom we identify, and we want to have leaders. Perhaps the "nation state" itself, per se, is artificial, but the process of creating a nation state is natural. Why should an Inupiak family from Greenland, a Dogon family from Mali, a Maori family from New Zealand, and a Yagua family from the Amazon want to share one common economic system; how could there ever be one central government, free of divisions, that would appeal to all groups in the world? The United Nations is a weak and lopsided microcosm of what a world government could be like, and you can already see how its members fundamentally differ in what's good for the world.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, Oh right. Thanks for clearing that up. Good luck with everything. iconoclast.

[Aedes]

So would you like to take this opportunity to describe specifically what religious ideas are holding us back? Or specifically how a pan-global state is supported by science? Or specifically what a science-based state would constitute?

I have objections to your general principles, but we might find our points of view closer together if you would actually elaborate on them. Or we might make some progress if you'd actually read and respond to my comments rather than just giving up here.

This topic affords opportunity for a productive discussion, so it would be unfortunate if you aren't interested in developing it further.

[ogden]

Hello Aedes, I'd like to respond to part of your post if I may.

Originally Posted by Aedes

So what if we're all human? It's clearly biologically determined that we prioritize nuclear family over extended family, extended family over friends, friends over nation, and nation over world. We are socially relativistic. We congregate with "like" people, and this is true throughout the world. And we choose leaders with whom we identify, and we want to have leaders. Perhaps the "nation state" itself, per se, is artificial, but the process of creating a nation state is natural.

I find this statement true especially in light of the way other primates socialize. I agree that the tribe/clan mentality is in play in humans as well, and may account ultimately for us creating nation states. I think that it is only natural for us to group in these ways from family outward expanding to nation states. My question is why do we have to stop at nations states and not continue this unifying trend until we unite as one global entity? This doesnt mean we would have to get rid of nation states or any of the sub groups, it just means the strength and validity of the centralized rulling body would have to be greater than the UN.

Why should an Inupiak family from Greenland, a Dogon family from Mali, a Maori family from New Zealand, and a Yagua family from the Amazon want to share one common economic system;

I think there would be great advantages to there being a global ecinomic watchdog that had teeth, to at least level the playing field and help pramote general ecinomic health (WTO?). Not that the ecinomic details of each group would be mandated but the global econamy has potential to benifit all, or benifit some while unfairly restricting others.

how could there ever be one central government, free of divisions, that would appeal to all groups in the world?

Yes, this is a very good question. Personally I fear corruption, loss of liberty, and collosal buracracy.

The United Nations is a weak and lopsided microcosm of what a world government could be like, and you can already see how its members fundamentally differ in what's good for the world.

I too am very disapointed in the UN (disapointed with Cofee Anan). We must press forward though and find a way that could somehow hurdle the barriers placed before us. Ironically the very things that could raise us up become our deviding boundaries; religion, philosophy, ecinomics, nation, race. I think that globalisation actually helps us see our connectedness and brings the totality of man more near the valued clan/family.

Aedes, you know history and the world much better than I so I'm really interested if you think globalization is bad or dangerous and on what level could it be helpfull? And as a man of science, do you think science or any one branch of science could be applied more ernestly to solve global problems?

Iconoclast, I know you have limited internet time, but I look forward to hearing your thoughts if you get a chance.