Dear Mr Xi Jinping,
I read about the re-education camps in your country. They look fabulous. I’ve been thinking of attending summer school for a while, and this sounds ideal. How can I apply?
Your faithfully
DPC Ed
Free Energy Evangelists Hiding Something
Watching the experts on Free Energy demonstrate their secrets of perpetual motion raises a small question.
Why not make money from the free energy method they’ve discovered rather than making videos about it?
A comment by jetplaneflyer on the video below perhaps answers this:
“When I was at school we made a very similar electric motor in class. Only difference being that we didn’t hide the battery that powered it under the table!“
When cat videos no longer help pass a moment pleasantly, perpetual motion is a good second best.
Yet another earns a great comment similarly inspired by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, left by jayanth yk:
“My house runs completely on free energy. I steal my neighbor’s electricity lol“.
Cats, Psychology, And Nonsense
The Sun, a lively British tabloid and definitive authority on celebrity gossip and boobs, in other words a-fun-to-read Orwellian rag, featured a cat on a staircase with the headline: Optical illusion of a cat could reveal whether you are an optimist or a pessimist depending on what you see first.
The apparent illusion invites you to decide whether the cat is going up or down the stairs.
The Sun columnist Jacob Bentley-York writes of the image (“shared” with him by the Mind Journal):
“Whichever way you see the cat walking exposes your approach to life, it claims. Both viewpoints are said to have definitive meanings.”
Happily for Bentley-York, he does attribute the claim to the the Mind Journal and not to himself.
Then follows a summary of the analysis according to the Mind Journal, of the two ways people might see the image.
Going Up
If the cat looks as if it’s going up the stairs, you’re likely an optimist, according to the Mind Journal. There are soaring claims of positivity in such a view, such as rising higher in life, seeing potential and growth wherever one looks, and “clear signs of ambition in you and no one, except yourself, can stop you from going higher in life.”
Going Down
If on the other hand you are addled with a mind that sees the cat going down the stairs, the picture is not so rosy.
“You are a skeptic, to be honest,” the Mind Journal states, (apparently implying this is a bad thing).
“It may have been based on your experiences in life or just because of the sort of people you may have met that tilted your view of life towards the negative side. But this means that you don’t trust easily now, you calculate before you commit and you are wary of people who seem too sweet. It may just be your way of tackling the world but you are much sharper and shrewd in your dealings, making it almost impossible to trick or deceive you.”
So overall, if you saw the cat going down the stairs you are a negative, suspicious and untrusting person, with the possible advantage that it is very hard to sell you something you don’t need.
Clearly, the Mind Journal analysis chimes with the widespread idea that being an optimist is a good thing, and that being a pessimist is a handicap and not much fun. It ignores completely the third possibility, which is to be a realist, be it a miserable or cheerful one, examining all interpretations that result from vague first impressions, allowing reason to determine precisely what is going on.
So What’s Going On?
The problem with the sort of folk psychology displayed in this particular instance is not its definition of optimist and pessimist, but the fact that it does not apply to the so-called illusion of the cat on the stairs.
As the entry in the Mind Journal itself points out (after you are shown the image and asked to decide), the cat is clearly walking down the stairs.
“You may notice a slight shadow under the overhanging nose of the stair treads. These shadows would only be visible if the cat was going down the stairs towards the viewer who is looking upstairs.”
And that indeed is the case. Stone or marble stairs (as the image appears to show) are constructed using a top horizontal slab resting on a vertical slab, to form the box shape of each step. Sometimes there is no overhang of the top slab, and so no protuberance or ridge as seen in the photo. But whether there is or not, for obvious reasons of stability the top slab will always be laid so as to rest on the vertical slab, and not such that it will sink behind it.
Frequently, the top, horizontal slab does indeed overhang the vertical. This is possibly for aesthetic reasons, though likely there is a construction or durability advantage to the overhang itself.
In the image with the cat the top edge of each step protrudes markedly, seen especially clearly in the step at the very bottom of the image. But it is not only the shadow formed by the ridge that highlights the fact that the stairs is being viewed from the bottom (and thus the cat is descending), because light could just as well be coming from below as above, resulting in no shadow. It is the fact that our brains have learned that stone stairways always have the top slab resting on the lower vertical slab, and so no ridge forms as viewed from the top. And as noted, frequently the top slab does indeed overhang the lower vertical slab, as viewed from the bottom of the stairway.
One may see very rare exceptions to this, where the top slab does not rest on the vertical slab, and so will in time sink under its own weight and the impact of footfall. A ridge would then form protruding upwards. This presents a serious hazard of catching your heels on the ridge and falling headlong as you descend, so thankfully we almost never come across stair ways like this.
There is a second feature of the image that further demonstrates the cat is descending the stairs. If the cat were going up, then not only will the stair case have been constructed by a fool, there would also be dirt and debris packed up against the ridge. None, however, is visible (unless it was cleaned just before taking the photo).
This so-called optical illusion, then, shows us absolutely nothing about being an optimist or pessimist. If anything, all it shows is that people who view it as a cat ascending are failing to see the world as it is. Which arguably could severely disadvantage them and perhaps be fatal in some circumstances. One could be harsh, and rather than labelling them cheery optimists with a bright future ahead, they are happy-go-lucky panglossians, easily duped and ready to settle for the first impression or explanation that comes along. Beware!
Correctly viewing the image as a cat descending, on the other hand, deserves a pat on the head, and perhaps a tin of tuna, because your brain correctly interpreted the world. The worst that can be said about you is that you are indeed a realist.
If there is anything else to say in all this nonsense about uncovering optimist or pessimist tendencies in our interpretations, it is that it’s another form of creating illusory differences and divisions that do not help us get along. The Sun page hosts a survey, with roughly 68.2% claiming they viewed the cat as ascending, 29.3% descending, and 2.5% unsure. The problem with the survey is that it comes after the analysis of the two views of ascent or descent are explained, thus biasing the reader towards the cheerier outlook. How many people adjusted their answer when voting so that they would avoid admitting, to themselves and not simply to The Sun, they are pessimists when in fact they are realists?
Though I think that even “realist” may be a problematic label in itself. Punto, labels are problematic.
To cast some serious light on this, in conclusion it is helpful to call on a higher authority. If asked to decide on the matter, Erwin Schrödinger would surely have answered that until you looked at it, the cat was “going both up and down the stairs.”
Airbnb and the Elephant in the Room
Following the announcement by KPMG and Netflix to suspend operations in Russia and Belarus over the attack on Ukraine, the CEO and founder of Airbnb has announced similar measures for the global holiday rental platform.
Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today program (7 March 2022), Brian Chesky talked of a difficult decision that in the end had to be made. Asked whether this would set a precedence, for example with regard to a potential attack by China on Taiwan or indeed with regard to the ongoing brutalisation of the Uighur people, Mr Chesky declined to give a firm response, though he did outline what currently guides Airbnb ethical policy.
“With regard to Airbnb communities all over the world we have a non-discrimination policy and work hard to remove listings of any community member violating our policy of antidiscrimination, consistently looking country by country making sure we can defend our practices.”
Given the crime committed by Mr Putin in invading Ukraine and the atrocities the Russian president is causing Russian soldiers to commit, there seems to be a sound argument for Airbnb to boycott Russian property owners in line with their ethics policy. At the same time it is a shame that whilst Airbnb seem to have a semblance of an ethical approach, for which they are to be applauded (admittedly encouraged perhaps by the general Russia sanctions movement and “guidance” received from the US government, as Mr Chesky put it), Airbnb lacks consistency with regard to any lasting and far reaching ethical stance, the very which Mr Chesky was vague about when responding to the BBC reporter.
This is not the first time properties and owners have been banned from Airbnb on the basis of violations of human rights and international law. In 2018, in response to lobbying by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in aid of Palestinian human rights, Airbnb agreed to remove Israeli owned properties in the occupied Palestinian lands and the Syrian Golan Heights, both territories considered under international law as illegally militarily occupied and illegally settled.
After potentially damaging though entirely unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism and discrimination against Israel as motivation for the ban (as opposed to rightful recognition of human rights abuses and violation of International Law by Israel), Airbnb sadly bent to such pressure and re-instated properties belonging to illegal Jewish settlers, whose brutal discrimination against Palestinians is well documented by Israeli human rights organisations such as B’Tselem. This U-turn was condemned by Jewish Voice for Peace, who called for humanitarian groups and non-profits receiving Airbnb funds to “say no to dirty money.”
This folding in the face of threats of a false anti-Semitic smear was remarkable, since Airbnb need not fear. If ever there was a clear case for an ethical stance supported by concrete evidence it is the boycott of Israel until it respects international law. There is no controversy or doubt whatsoever that Israel and Israeli settlers are in violation of human rights and International Law on land occupied through conquest. It is there to read in the United Nations Resolutions on Palestine, and many Israelis and Jews themselves are appalled by such conduct and consistently call it out.
Yet the anti-Semitic smearing of Airbnb and the righteous motive underlying the boycott was enough to force capitulation by Airbnb. (Ben and Jerrys’ have, on the other hand, held steadfast to their boycott on selling their brand of ice cream not just in the occupied Palestinian lands, but in Israel itself).
This will remain a mark on the moral integrity of Airbnb and its shareholders, and listening to Mr Chesky speak of his resolve to boycott Russian and Belarusian owners, the whiff of the climb down over Jewish property owners illegally occupying Palestinian lands was, like the proverbial elephant in the room, palpably all around him. It must surely have been in his consciousness as he spoke.
It is a shame on many levels, because as we listen to the gasps of shock and horror surrounding the vicious attack on Ukraine, and that this should not be happening in the 21st Century, Airbnb is missing an opportunity to be among those to lead the way forward through century, making ethics solidly part of their brand and sticking to it come what may. It is particularly onerous on businesses to be ethical in the 21st Century, since aside from what they think of themselves as ethical beings, despite their power and reach they can no longer present a moral face to customers whilst dealing with those who commit crimes and violate international law. (The Russian people are not the ones committing the crimes, but unfortunately there is no other way but sanctions to isolate Russia right now.)
Corporate Misinformation and Slight of Hand
The American Petroleum Institute provides an important public information service. Though this is mainly on behalf of the fossil fuel sector, and not actually for the advancement of truth and public understanding.
On a page entitled “Natural gas is alternative energy”, the API boldly states that “Natural gas is an alternative and natural form of energy, which can be used to replace traditional fossil fuel (gasoline and diesel).”
There are two things to note about this page. First, the grammar and writing are appalling, and second, it is wholly misleading, simply in that first sentence, without considering the rest of the poorly written text.
Whilst natural gas does produce fewer harmful emissions than do oil or coal, under the universally accepted meaning of the term, natural gas is not considered “alternative energy”. Using the phrase “alternative energy” to describe natural gas is misleading, further compounded by referring to oil and coal as “traditional fossil fuels”, giving the impression that natural gas is not in fact a fossil fuel but without directly saying so. To see this verbal slight of hand more clearly, a look at what is meant by the terms “fossil fuel” (or fossil energy) and “alternative energy” is useful.
“Fossil energy” is used to describe combustible materials produced naturally from the decomposition of organic matter – remnants of plants, animals, plankton and bacteria – fossilised over millions of years under great heat and pressures deep within the Earth. (See also the Smithsonian definition of fossil fuel.)
“Alternative energy” on the other hand, refers to forms of energy that are not the result of fossilised decomposition of organic matter over millions of years. This includes renewable alternative energy such as wind, solar, biomass, hydro, tidal and wave, which are all replenished continuously by the sun; and non-renewable alternative energy such as nuclear and geothermal. It takes in both combustibles (wood, bio gas), and non combustibles (wind, tidal etc.) The essential attribute and defining criterion of this category of energy source, however, is that its formation is not via fossilisation of dead animals and plants over millions of years.
“Alternative energy” and “fossil energy” are thus used to designate two separate categories of energy source. The term “alternative energy” is now universally used, understood and accepted throughout society (academia, media, government, industry and down at the pub) to refer to all sources of energy that are not derived from fossil fuels.
That’s my definition of alternative energy. Here are some others:
- Usable power (such as heat or electricity) that comes from a renewable or green resource. (Merriam-Webster)
- Energy fuelled in ways that do not use up the earth’s natural resources or otherwise harm the environment, especially by avoiding the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. (Oxford Lexico)
- Energy sources considered to be alternatives to fossil fuel sources (Engineering Wiki)
Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have a separate entry for alternative energy and redirects to the page on renewable energy. This is probably testament to the fact that “alternative energy” is not only understood to mean energy sources that are not fossil fuel derived, but that the term has by now become more or less synonymous with renewables that produce little if any harmful emissions, and which constitute the majority of alternative forms of energy.
The other point to note is that this accepted differentiation between alternative energy and fossil fuel energy does not at first consider the impact either form of fuel has on the environment. The fundamental defining criterion that distinguishes alternative energy and fossil fuel energy is the manner in which they are formed. Their categorisation is not ultimately in regard to what they are used for or the effects they have, and not even in their chemical composition or how they are extracted or otherwise obtained. It is how they are formed that is the fundamental bases by which “alternative energy” and “fossil fuel energy” are distinguished and taken to constitute two different categories of energy source. The fact that alternative forms of energy are less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels is significant of course, and in fact is why it is useful to invent a distinguishing term. But it is not the fundamental criterion by which we clearly distinguish these sources of fuel.
Natural gas is indisputably obtained from deep within the Earth, and moreover always in association with oil and coal, or perhaps intermediate forms such as peat. Critically, the formation of natural gas is uncontroversial in scientific terms, and can only be explained as resulting from the decomposition of the remnants of ancient organisms buried deep within the earth and subject to enormous forces and heat.
Clearly then, natural gas does not fit into the universally accepted definition of alternative energy. It is not alternative, because it is in fact a fossil fuel. Stating that “natural gas is alternative energy” is a gross misrepresentation, exploiting the received meaning of alternative energy (as just set out) to circumvent public unease at the continued use even of this less harmful fossil fuel (natural gas), when cleaner forms of energy are available.
How This Slight of Hand is Pulled Off
We have established that with the term “alternative energy” the American Petroleum Institute is using misleading language to describe natural gas. The API in fact conflates variety with category. Natural gas is a variety of fossil fuel, not an alternative to it, because in the context of energy, “alternative” refers to a different category and not a different variety of energy source. Stating that natural gas is “alternative energy” is similar to saying a wooden dining chair is alternative seating to a textile armchair. Whilst trivially this is true, categorically it is false. They are each a variety of seating, alternatives if you like and wish to be pedantic, yet they are still both part of the same category of furniture – “things to sit on” – commonly known as seating or chairs. Similarly with dogs: there are varieties among them – called breeds – yet they all still belong to the same category or species of animal “dog”.
And so it is with with oil, coal and natural gas: whilst trivially they can be viewed as alternative to each other, they are still all fossil fuels, only different varieties. They are all part of the same category of hydrocarbon based energy sources produced via ancient fossilisation and decomposition of the remnants of plants and animals over millions of years. Each is simply a different form – or breed if you like – of fossil fuel, just as a Chiwawahua and Great Dane are different breeds of dog.
And like chairs made from different materials and in different shapes and sizes, oil, coal and gas each have a use for which they are best adapted, natural gas being the lowest emitter of harmful substances when used for power generation. Coal and oil contain impurities absent in natural gas, many of which produce substances that are highly toxic when burned, such as dioxides of nitrogen and sulphur. Coal and oil are therefore best left unburned and are best used in processes that extract useful compounds for applications such as plastics and fertilisers. Natural gas therefore emerges as a better, alternative form of fossil fuel for energy production.
In the specific context of fossil versus non fossil energy such as wind, solar and hydro, the API identification of natural gas as an alternative energy is, as just noted, grossly misleading. It is not an alternative energy source, just a different form of fossil fuel. It is the the API’s use of language universally understood to mean “forms of energy that are non-fossil derived” that constitutes the slight of hand, by all appearances deliberately conflating variation within a specific category with variation between categories. (The variations are oil, coal and gas; the category is energy sources). An apple is an alternative form of fruit to oranges, to adopt the strange language of the API, but they are still both part of the category fruit. They certainly differ with regard to appearance, taste and how they are constituted, but they both share all the characteristics and are subject to the same criteria that we use to define fruit as a distinct category of food.
Where the API should have used different form or variant, they have used alternative, thus hijacking the accepted use of this word in the context of energy and harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The conflation is, on the face of it clever. The API does not actually claim that natural gas is not a fossil fuel; it simply uses language to misrepresent and mislead us into thinking that it is not a fossil fuel. This is further assisted by referring to oil and coal as “traditional fossil fuels”, which has the effect of further falsely differentiating natural gas from oil and coal, again without actually claiming that natural gas is not a fossil fuel similar to oil and coal.
To round things up, at the end of the article the API inaccurately states that:
“Most natural gas is fossil fuel formed by heat and pressure on organic material and form (sic) over millions of years. Natural gas can come from landfill gas and water/sewage treatment…“
This is also patently misleading. As noted here, natural gas is the name given to all (not most) of the gas that is formed under heat and pressure over millions of years. The gas that is produced from landfill, water and sewage treatment, and also in bio-reactors is a renewable resource termed biogas, to distinguish it from non-renewable natural gas. Both categories of gas may have a similar hydrocarbon structure, yet the process of their formation is entirely distinct in each case.
The API misinformation is a difficult slight of hand to unpick, easily missed by those not yet alert to attempts by the fossil fuel industry to thwart regulation of fossil fuel burning, further delaying the widespread use of alternative and renewable sources.
It is also another eye opening example of a shameless “alternative truth”. To drive the point home to the apprentice alternative-truther who wrote this appalling and grammatically challenged piece: natural gas is not alternative energy. It is just an alternative form of the precious, unique, irreplaceable yet highly polluting fossil fuels that we currently burn as if there were no tomorrow.
Perversity of Modern War: Russia and West poised for war while we all watch Netflix
In a July 2020 interview on the rounding up and imprisonment of the Uighur people in China, BBC journalist Andrew Marr showed a clip of the human rights abuses to the Chinese ambassador to the UK, clearly uncomfortable at the scenes before him. “Can I ask you why people are kneeling blindfolded and shaven and being led to trains in modern China?”, Marr asks the ambassador as he squirms.
We might ask a similar question about the launch of hostilities by Russia against the Ukraine and by implication the West. Why in a modern world is this happening? Why, when we literally have direct links through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and shared leisurely pursuits through other instantly available media such as Netflix, is it still possible to divide through war and abuse people? The Uighur and dissidents in Hong Kong, people under occupation in Palestine, countless people under despotic regimes in Africa and the Middle East, many of which enjoy the hypocritical support of the West such as in Saudi Arabia and Egypt? We have seen the powerful effect of social media on the Me Too and Black Lives movements, why not in war, conflict, despotism and human rights?
Anyone who has their wits about them will suspect a lot more is going on in the Ukraine conflict than can be gleaned from news reports and statements by officials on either side. Sources in the West depict Russia as rogue, headed by a kleptocratic and authoritarian leader who fiddles elections and poses with a bear chest. Whilst that may be so, in Russia on the other hand Western nations are depicted as being again up to no good, trying to entrench their influence in former Soviet states, entice them into NATO and turn them away from Russia. And that too, may be so. Only the most naïve would consider either side has a monopoly on civilised conduct, truth and fair dealing. Intrigue, state delinquency, corruption and violence in the service of power and economic gain are tools of the trade in so-called international relations. And despite the veneer given by the UN, ICJ and other global bodies of international law and order, this arena of international relations is essentially anarchic, moderated by diplomacy and economic incentive or sanctions when you are not quite mighty enough to get your way, and force and threat of devastation when you are. Force has a legitimate place in this arena when the other side is the aggressor, yet it is not always clear who the aggressor is, or whether indeed there are legitimate concerns on both sides that are being handled honestly or openly.
The facts are that when states deal with each other at this level and under these circumstances especially it is exclusively without the participation of their citizens. Thirty years on from the collapse of the USSR we are all connected in ways as never before, through means that give us the chance to cultivate a sense of shared needs, global responsibility and destiny, yet we are still at the mercy of leaders and governments who beat the drums of war under a narrative that is tightly spun for national consumption, and which isolates and divides us from others who are also subject to their own nationalistic propaganda and divisiveness.
The internet has changed the face of human connectedness on a global level, far beyond television and radio, when at most international events such as the Olympics and the World Cup would be watched by millions simultaneously all over the world, imparting a sense of shared existence. Today’s connectedness is far more powerful and profound, epitomised by phenomenon such as YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, and many other services and social media that offer instant and continuous connectedness. More than that, and most powerfully of all, they offer every individual the opportunity for self expression, with countless personal and activist channels on platforms such as YouTube and Instagram with the capacity to reach, influence and even mobilise people on a vast scale.
The perversity is that given this unprecedented level of connection and implied familiarity on a global scale, you would think the idea of killing each other would be embarrassing if not utterly abhorrent. It’s not easy to shoot at a chap who enjoys Game of Thrones as much as you do. He’s supposed to have different tastes and offensive, corrupt beliefs, darkly opposite to your own enlightened view of life. The profound, surreal aspect adding to the insanity of any modern day conflict is that after trying to kill each other, enemy soldiers might very well both log into the same episode on Netflix, download a tune from Spotify, or buy something from Alibaba or Amazon.
No such connection between foes existed for conflicts prior to the rise of the internet, social media, and online services. Much has been made of a reported football match between British and German soldiers during the Christmas truce of 1914, capturing the imagination and heart, set against the horror of trying to kill each other only hours earlier, and still further, for the fact that military superiors reportedly had to shell the players to get them to go back to this important task, worried that the shared connectedness “would undermine fighting spirit”.
Though not a complete failsafe, such humane connection and interaction lets us view each other humanely, making us less willing to harm and fight each other to resolve our differences. Just as with the shelling to end the friendly football game Christmas 1914, leaders must shell us with propaganda to disrupt the humane, civilised connections we have always possessed, as well as those fast developing with our new age of instant global connection.
So whilst today’s internet services and social media may be accused of many ill effects on society, their global accessibility among even enemies may be one of their good points yet to be fully tapped. It is now possible to watch Russian and Chinese films and TV series easily, cheaply and on demand, bringing us face to face with the humanity of people who few of us ever meet yet whom we discover are little different (Squid Game being a notable Korean worldwide blockbuster success from Netflix). One wonders what productions media companies could come up with in an appeal to the humanity rather than the barbarity of soldiers led to war by corporate greed, as with US administrations with Iraq for example, or tyrannical desperation and corruption as we are seeing with Vladimir Putin in Russia as he gangs up on Ukraine.
More powerfully still, the potential for social media to directly connect populations one-to-one on an individual level via video and chat, along common lines and shared interests, or simply out of curiosity (somewhat in the spirit of old-fashioned pen-pals but with much more on offer) is as yet entirely untapped. What would be happening right now if 10 million people in Russia were in connection with 10 million people in Ukraine and throughout Europe via Zoom, WhatsApp and Facebook etc., exchanging recipes, pet and DIY tips, organising visits to each other, learning the other’s language, or perhaps indeed expressing their horror at what their leaders are doing, and organising to make their voices heard? What does the social in “social media” actually stand for if it is not for this? What do we want out of it more than giving us a means to connect online with people we already know just to parade our holiday pics and get a few likes?
Unfortunately the people who have made most effective use of social media to forge transnational links are those sadly seduced by the far-right. Based solely on ideology, such networking is soon to be facilitated by Donald Trump as he sets up his own social media platform for those who, like him, have been banned from the likes of Twitter and Facebook for fake news and extremist views.
The world needs a counter to this form of misguided zealotry, and should it ever transpire would overwhelm it without doubt, as the good people of the world are much more in number, yet sadly so far, also much more easily isolated and divided.
Climate Change: A Short Experiment in Politics
Climate change can be viewed as a handy, planetary scale, natural experiment whose outcome will cast new light on the politics of left and right.
In amongst the gathering climate disaster and impending catastrophe of unchecked climate change there is an uncounted blessing. Small comfort though it is, we might finally have a test that shows which out of left or right political thinking is overall worse for humanity.
This is possible because the assertion, in the face of what appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence, that climate change is not human-induced is falsifiable.
This is important, because for today’s deniers and soothsayers to be taken seriously their arguments and theses must be amenable to continual verification, as well as the possibility of eventual falsification.
To put it simply, if not now then in coming decades [1] the arguments advanced by climate change deniers will either emerge as being irrefutably true or they will become too obviously ridiculous to maintain (one argument is that current global heating is caused by a long-term cycle in the Sun’s power output, now at or near a maximum. If global heating continues unabated after maximum, then this theory can be discounted after allowing for any mitigations by humans). In other words, climate change deniers will be seen to have been either right or wrong in their stance, and if wrong, as they are currently held to be by science, to have also imperilled humanity through reckless or perhaps outright dishonest denial.
The counter argument is of course also valid. If shown to be ineluctably wrong, those maintaining the science as correct on anthropogenic heating will be seen to have inconvenienced humanity by being over cautious. Although certainly not to have imperilled humanity, and rather to have aided it, given that the actions proposed by those who accept the science herald other benefits, such as cleaner, healthier air and wiser use of fossil fuels [2].
But aside from showing us who was in the end right or wrong, this inadvertent natural experiment also provides a means for showing what type of political thinking underlies a particular stance. And this in turn will provide a way of strongly linking political stance to real world effect.
Here’s how the reasoning goes: the people who deny anthropogenic climate change and claim it a hoax seem to be mostly conservative, right-leaning, and in many cases far right in their politics. As one example, take Donald Trump and some sections of his voter base, with possibly many flat-earthers among them also (though as Gareth Dorrian and Ian Whittaker writing in The Conversation note, this may not be so straightforward an association because “proponents of one of these theories are not necessarily proponents of the other”).
In contrast, people who seemingly take the trouble to understand and subsequently accept the scientific view of climate change seem to be overwhelmingly progressive and left.
So, on my estimation at least, deniers can generally be characterised as right-leaning, acceptors as left-leaning.
This means there will be an outcome to the experiment beyond simply knowing who is right or wrong about climate change based on the acceptance or denial of scientifically obtained data. It further provides information with regard to the political thinking underlying that acceptance or denial, and ultimately which stance is good or bad for the planet.
(Supporting studies and statistics are needed to affirm my estimation of the correlation between political leaning and climate change stance. I characterise deniers as being overwhelmingly right and acceptors as being left. However, irrespective of what that correlation is in reality, the experiment is valid as an objective test of the effect of political thinking on the real world.)
Likely Outcome, based on current scientific data
If one accepts the scientific data as true, and my estimation of the correlation of left and right is correct, then the falsification of climate change denial (i.e., the eventual impossibility of sanely refuting anthropogenic climate change) will show right-leaning politics to have had a bad effect on the course of human history.
When “alternative facts”, astonishing claims of “modelling errors” as put forth by the psychologist Jordan Peterson, as well as other denial arguments finally become too difficult or embarrassing to defend by even the most obtuse or profit-driven sceptic, climate denial will have been exposed for the pernicious propaganda that many of us, looking at the science, suspect it is. This could serve us well (seeing we are already on that road) in that we will have identified a way of political thinking that to some has already undeniably led us to disaster, providing us with at least one historical instance of global, pan-national and catastrophic science denial and misconstrual associated with right-leaning, conservative thinking such as that of Peterson’s.
Progressively inclined people already strongly suspect conservative thinkers tend towards trashing the planet in their effort to keep a small minority rich at the expense of everyone else. A planetary scale natural experiment that clearly demonstrates this tendency will provide robust evidence that the political thinking that underlies it is the wrong kind for a civilisation at our stage in its history and with our kinds of problems. Whilst it is impossible to claim that conservative thinking is unfit during all stages in a civilisation’s ascent (because it may actually be useful when life is unavoidably “nasty, brutish and short’ and necessarily a “war of all against all”), it does now seem we can with confidence claim such circumstances no longer necessarily prevail; that there are more than ample means to allow everyone the opportunity to flourish without fighting each other over resources, and, absurdly, consuming and wasting those very resources in this war of all against all, not least against the planet itself.
[1] Going by the unfortunate confusion displayed by Jordan Peterson, whom we might term a DIY climatologist, we may need to wait centuries before such ill informed views are entirely laid to rest.
[2] This is also another argument in favour of caution when facing something as momentous as climate change, even when one is skeptical or does not understand the science. The consequences of denial and inaction are many orders of magnitude graver than the consequences of misplaced prudence, added to which there are in fact long-term benefits to being cautious whereas denial and inaction bear only short term benefits, and then only to a few.
Climate Change Denial
Climate change deniers argue that if anthropogenic global heating is real, there is little to worry about because geoengineering will fix it.
The best response to this is to pose the counterfactual, and ask whether a cold planet could be made hotter, and if so, what would be the best mechanism for achieving that?
Raise your glass and smile while it sinks in.
Sloshed, they worked into the night Saving the Nation
The UK press is once again awash with the latest revelations of the Johnson’s regime’s boozy misconduct and its entitled, unending contempt for the nation. The Prime Minister, his aids, senior civil servants and their minions have persistently flouted the national COVID rules they themselves put in place, most frequently at farewell parties. This was best captured in reports that on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral, a Downing Street staffer was dispatched with a suitcase to fetch more booze from the nearby Co-op on The Strand in central London
What everyone is missing is that the real scandal is not the flouting of COVID rules at illicit parties during a pandemic, but that the stand-in PM and his Downing Street staff were running the country pissed. And that also this may not be confined just to times of national emergency, what with the general sense of partying and joie de vivre such disasters tend to raise in decent people. No, as reported in The Guardian, according to a senior Tory who previously worked at Downing Street, “opening a bottle of wine at the desk was not unusual if people were working into the evening, particularly on a Friday.”
It would be interesting to see the statistics on surgeons and aircraft engineers who write reports and recommend measures with a bottle of wine on the desk. The aftermath of such conduct may not be as immediately apparent in governance as with a plane crash or an increase in operating theatre deaths, yet it would be there, perhaps in a recommendation to delay critical lockdowns that, though they lower the death toll, nonetheless make it more difficult to nip to the local booze store.
Bottom-up Party: Popular selection of Policy and Candidates
Noam Chomsky once gave a very good description of how to make sure the politicians we vote in will serve the societal good rather than themselves and powerful interests. Basically, we tell them which policies we want them to stand for. If they agree, we agree to vote for them.
That is somewhat different to what happens now. Currently, political hopefuls from various parties come along and dangle a list of tantalising policies; and then they ask us to vote them in as parliamentary representatives. Not only has the electorate had no say in who this candidate is, having a say in the policies they are standing for is usually extremely difficult if not impossible. Chomsky (and probably others too) proposes that voters should tell candidates that if they fight on the issues that matter to them as electorate, then they’ll vote for them as candidates.
This is a stronger form of democracy than we currently have. Yet there is an even more robust democratic system, the essential details of which are fairly simple.
The People’s Party: how to go about creating one and voting it into government
How does a political party get started?
More or less, a group of individuals get together and draw up a set of policies they call a manifesto. Then they register the party, stump up 500 quid each to put themselves up as candidates in elections, and start canvassing for people who will vote them into parliament and perhaps government.
However, this traditional structure is not a bottom-up party and certainly not a people’s party. A bottom-up people’s party is not built by a handful of individuals but by millions of people, both in terms of the policies and the candidates that will represent those policies. It does not need a select group of individuals to draw up an initial raft of policies, only to create the space in which such policies can be tabled by anyone in the general public and then selected by public polling to form the Manifesto; and second, it requires individuals – again, from the general public – who feel they have the requisite political acumen to bring the policies to fruition. Such people can present themselves as provisional party representatives and future parliamentary candidates, but only on the bases of the policies previously selected by public polling and which now form the Manifesto.
Once a cohort of potential party representatives is formed (say 4 or 5 for each constituency), people can vote to select the actual party representative. By putting themselves for selection as a party representative, candidates also agree to subject themselves to vetting criteria, based on an assessment of both their declared and their proven acumen, competence, experience, qualification and so on.
Once a representative for each constituency is chosen (always on the basis not of their policies but those already selected by public polling), they are now the candidate for future member of parliament in that constituency, and can run as a member of the “People’s Party”, or however it is called, in the next election.
There could be regional tweaks to reflect local issues in various constituencies, but the individual policy details of the manifesto and hence the overall party line is decided by members of the public long before a face is put to those policies in the form of several hundred candidates and a “supreme leader”.
The crucial points are that voters reach mass consensus on the policies first, divorced of any rhetoric and personal consideration related to candidates, and only then is someone considered for selection as a party candidate to represent those policies.
In essence, the “ordinary folk”, who usually are only given the illusion of democracy every four or five years, have the power to elect not only who represents them, but also to select the policies they want to be represented for.
This, arguably, is authentic democracy. Anyone can suggest policy on any area, and the entire process of drawing up a manifesto and selecting the representatives who will bring those policies to fruition (if elected to government) are all chosen by popular vote by anyone of voting age. Moreover, the vetting criteria for choosing party representatives, who are themselves ordinary citizens of any hue, can similarly be selected through a public polling process.
Every stage is therefore democratic and involves the populace, rather than a small group of individuals seeking the support of the populace. Nothing is left to individual design – except perhaps the technical gubbins of some web platform from where all of this can be coordinated. Hardly a political matter.
We might call this party by any number of obvious names: People’s Party, Public Manifesto Party, True Choice Party, and so on.
And there are no party members as such. The party survives only as long as there are people willing to engage in it, vote for it, and also contribute to funding the necessary expenses.
This stands the current political and electoral farce on its head (often a remarkably effective way of getting something previously stubborn to work correctly, such as a tomato sauce bottle). Currently, jovial chancers masquerading as a political party conjure up policies that sound appealing yet which in the end they frequently betray. Popular selection of policies that people want, followed by a marriage of those policies to people who can demonstrate genuine acumen, competence and conscientiousness to bring the policies to fruition is an enormous leap away from the current restricted and frequently corrupt system.
An entire political party, truly of the people, can be put together in this way… I think. It would be populated by ordinary members of the public who are in full control of the policies and the candidates for Parliament. The MPs would be championing the people’s manifesto rather than the people having to settle for a manifesto that often poorly reflects their true needs.
And existing parties?
If we were speaking of an existing party, conversion to such an unarguably democratic system of selecting both policy and representatives by popular vote would be simple. Only a democratic and not a political will would be required for such a change. Perhaps the most likely candidate party in the UK would be the LibDems. Have they the vision?
This brief, inadequate and undoubtedly flawed description of a people’s party is somewhat a sort of Wikiparty (and same here). An idea that has been out in the wild for sometime now. The intention is that it is constructed and run by the electorate.
Wikipedia has as so far shown itself to be a very good repository of general knowledge; not of general knowledge per se, but of the general command of knowledge on nearly every subject as well as of important figures in society. The term for that is encyclopaedic, and from what anyone can guess without large government grants to study it, Wikipedia is every bit as good and as frequently consulted as any of the tightly managed attempts at encyclopaedic knowledge (Britannica, Chambers’, etc,).
Would such a “Wiki” approach to politics, as loosely outlined above, succeed in government? That is the question, though it could be worth a try.