Fellow denizens of the net:
I move we realign a lot of terminology in our country's political vernacular to be more consistent through history. Specifically, the following jargon needs to be addressed:
Liberal -- We ought to use this term only in respect to the liberal tradition present in English and American history, typically dated back to Edmund Burke (though really present in society at least as far back as King John was forced to sign the Great Charter). This consists of a trend towards more freedom of speech and religion. If any current political movement can be said to express the ideals of this tradition it would be the Libertarian Party. The term has nothing to do historically with Democratic Socialism, and it would be inadvisable to continue using it in a manner that suggests a relation.
Moonbattery -- This term could potentially refer to a Lunar weapon emplacement, which is far too awesome to leave it as a derogatory term referring to those who believe that criminals follow laws, that government is a wealth creator, and/or those who simply suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Reform -- We ought to only apply this particular term when a plan of action demonstrably improves a specific program, either by decreasing costs or improving efficiency or effectiveness. Making only cosmetic changes, or making changes which will obviously worsen the situation should not be considered as reform.
The Political Spectrum / The Right-Left Axis -- In regards to this, it really is an overgeneralization, and always has been. I would recommend dropping it altogether from our vernacular. If we must continue its use, it should refer to the classic distinction between the party of the court and the party of the country, republicans versus monarchists, or in the US, federalism versus states' rights. If I were to put this in terms of modern pundits, think Bill O'Reilly as your typical lefty, Rush Limbaugh as probably dead center, and Nick Gillespie as your typical righty. Such a spectrum would more accurately be in line with our history.
Grassroots/Astroturf -- I'm in favor of throwing both terms out, because while it ought to be seen as pathetic when you have to pay people to agree with you, I think we're intelligent enough to view _any_ idea thrown out in the public venue abstractly (regardless of who/where it came from). It does not seem useful to make a distinction between opinions based on what occupation the person comes from. Bad ideas are bad ideas, and good ideas are good ideas no matter who came up with them.
Expert -- There are certain subjects which require such specific layers of knowledge and understanding that I think most people implicitly understand that the person involved really does deserve to be taken credible. Then there's everything else: history, sociology, political science, economics, literature, art, psychology, business, marketing, etc. The only expertise involved in this list of topics is what we all learned in high school -- the ability to analyze information and report on it. I'm not sure even a differentiation between professional and amateur would be in order for any of the aforementioned "skills."
Welfare -- Basically, this ought to return to referring to infrastructure that maintains, promotes, and/or improves public well-being. It should not refer to any private goods or services given to a specific individual.
Global Warming -- Either make this term refer only to the kind of pseudo-science Al Gore endorses, or use it only in the sense of a layman's term for the Greenhouse Effect. I get tired of having to explain that I think AGW is a hoax, not trying to claim the aforementioned scientific phenomena doesn't happen.
And that's it...for now. I may think of some more later, but readjusting this stuff would make politics a lot clearer and more consistent not only for us now, but in keeping a consistent historical context for progeny's sake.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Net Neutrality Summary
The following is a summary of a presentation I'm to give on the Tuesday of next week. Lemme know what you think -- whether or not it hits all the points of interest on the topic, if the organization is well structured, etc. Do note that this is merely a summary, not a full on paper, so use of abbreviations and conversational inconsistency of person shouldn't be of particular concern.
Daniel Tanner
November 23rd, 2010
CMPT 335
Net Neutrality Presentation
My security presentation covers the topic of Net Neutrality. It is relevant to our class in security because it has to do with the availability and integrity of internet services. Definition of the term "Network Neutrality" itself is as good a place as any to begin. I should like to follow up with a consideration of various bills that have been introduced or passed in congress relating to the issue, leading into a discussion of the current one on the table. Naturally this will lead into consideration of the current policies in place at the Federal Communications Commission and some cases which have come up. Since the presentation up to said point will mostly engender the 'for' or 'pro' side of the issue, it seems only fair to round it out by discussing some of the concerns of parties opposed to the bill.
"Net Neutrality" is rather difficult to pin down to one specific definition, since the definition used in legislative bills on the subject use one definition, internet service providers and network administrators use another, and the popular media uses still another. The current policy of the Federal Communication Commission is often described as one of network neutrality, where all content is treated equally and there is no prioritization. To put that into more specific terminology, it would seem to mean that no packet prioritization is in play (routers act as a 'dumb' network where the actual content of packet doesn't come into consideration). This is not quite how the network works in reality (for example, compare UDP and TCP/IP protocols and how TCP is built to scale itself back when traffic gets heavy, while UDP does not. This effectively gives any content using UDP priority over TCP traffic). This is where another definition of network neutrality comes into play; that it is a policy of equal treatment in regard to users using certain services. Providers are prohibited from blocking or throttling any 'lawful' services and/or any 'lawful' content (where lawful is generally taken to refer to trafficking of certain content like child pornography being illegalized).
A number of bills have come and gone through congress in an effort to pass more regulations concerning network traffic control. The first of these bills comes from around 2005, under the name of the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act. When that failed, congress attempted to include most of the basic legislation as a rider on the COPE Act, though this was also shot down. It was again brought to the floor as the Net Neutrality Bill. This one also failed to pass, and the modern incarnation which is currently in committee hearings is called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. I've included the summary of the bill as part of the presentation and intend to read the main points of the policy, but it essentially prohibits ISPs from: preventing any particular individual from using internet access services, imposing special charges on particular types of content providers, preventing the usage of any 'lawful' device in conjunction with said services, establishing a scheme for prioritizing any given host's traffic over other hosts, and/or installing any network functionality to enable any of the aforementioned activities. It also sets the FCC up as the agency in charge of enforcing said regulations.
The current policy of the FCC isn't actually all that different than the proposed bill, though the regulations tend towards the vague and nebulous. Basically the policy is that all users should have access to lawful content, be able to run lawful applications/services, use lawful devices, and the FCC is directed to promote competition among iSPs and various content providers. A few incidents have arisen where these various powers have been tested. Whether it has proven enough, too much, or too little has been a primary point of contention among the various parties who have thrown their hats into the socio-political arena of ideas concerning this topic.
Comcast has become perhaps the most (in)famous ISP because of a related incident. In October 2007, the company, primarily in an effort to cooperate and comply with RIAA, MPAA, and federal rulings on copyright infringement, decided to block and/or interfere with network traffic assumed to contain pirated music and movies transferred over Bittorrent and other peer-to-peer filesharing software. The method of blocking was rather indirect (a DoS attack using reset packets), but due to the fact that a number of customers had legitimate services hindered or blocked by this incident, Comcast was brought to court by both a class action civil suit and a criminal charge from the FCC. While the criminal charge was not successful (apparently still active in appeals, though), Comcast was charged $16 per share to settle the civil suit. I'll go into more detail on the other events in class, since this summary is already getting long (admittedly, this is the best-documented one).
Let's finish out with the arguments against. The primary argument is not so much against the idea of Net Neutrality per se, as it is that the system already in place gets the job done. More specifically, the market as it is prevents ISPs from enacting the kind of priority systems previously mentioned; partly because the changing of the hardware is either technically infeasible (too expensive if even possible) or would end up cutting that particular ISP off from the rest of the internet, which is hardly the kind of service customers would want or pay for. Another argument against is the consideration of ISPs as the owners of these various communications networks, which they have paid to implement. Several property, which is, as ever, the central right, would seem to dictate that ISPs ought to have complete control over their own networks and their use (much as wireless communications companies have over their networks); and that any regulations to enforce government control would be unconstitutional. The next argument of note is the consideration of innovation in the network core -- that different methods of network management would be more difficult to attempt, or ISPs would be less likely to try in a more regulated environment. More technically inclined individuals provide yet another argument (and this goes back to the original way in which net neutrality is defined) -- that not all services are equal, and for the network to operate efficiently, different services must necessarily be treated differently. That should cover most, if not all, of the views in both directions.
Sources used in gathering the information in this summary and for the presentation are as follows (using Chicago Style Citations):
1 Lessig, Lawrence. “No Tolls on the Internet.” The Washington Post. Posted June 8th, 2006. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html .
2 Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality FAQ.” Posted December 26th, 2008. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html .
3 Markey, Edward (Sponsor D-MA) et al. H.R. 3458 – Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458 .
4 Carter, Nick. “What is Network Neutrality?” Accel Networks: Fixed Wireless Broadband Blog. Posted August 10, 2010. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.accel-networks.com/blog/index.php?q=/2010/08/what-is-net-neutrality.html .
5 Google et al. Open letter to Congress concerning Net Neutrality policy. Dated March 1, 2006. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf .
6 Dortch, Marlene H. Policy Statement. Federal Communications Commission. Dated September 23rd, 2005. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf
7 “Net Neutrality.” Wikipedia. Last modified November 10th, 2010. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
8 Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p. 750. (Referenced in 7).
9. Andrews, Tim. “Does ‘Net Neutrality’ Violate the First Amendment?” Americans for Tax Reform. Posted November 11th, 2009. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.atr.org/net-neutrality-violate-first-amendment-a4189
10. Majoras, Deborah et al. “Broadband Competition Policy.” FTC Staff Report June 2007. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.ftc.gov/reports/broadband/v070000report.pdf
11. Solomon, David H. et al. “In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC. And Affiliated Companies.” Federal Communications Commission. Accessed November 23rd. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A2.pdf
Daniel Tanner
November 23rd, 2010
CMPT 335
Net Neutrality Presentation
My security presentation covers the topic of Net Neutrality. It is relevant to our class in security because it has to do with the availability and integrity of internet services. Definition of the term "Network Neutrality" itself is as good a place as any to begin. I should like to follow up with a consideration of various bills that have been introduced or passed in congress relating to the issue, leading into a discussion of the current one on the table. Naturally this will lead into consideration of the current policies in place at the Federal Communications Commission and some cases which have come up. Since the presentation up to said point will mostly engender the 'for' or 'pro' side of the issue, it seems only fair to round it out by discussing some of the concerns of parties opposed to the bill.
"Net Neutrality" is rather difficult to pin down to one specific definition, since the definition used in legislative bills on the subject use one definition, internet service providers and network administrators use another, and the popular media uses still another. The current policy of the Federal Communication Commission is often described as one of network neutrality, where all content is treated equally and there is no prioritization. To put that into more specific terminology, it would seem to mean that no packet prioritization is in play (routers act as a 'dumb' network where the actual content of packet doesn't come into consideration). This is not quite how the network works in reality (for example, compare UDP and TCP/IP protocols and how TCP is built to scale itself back when traffic gets heavy, while UDP does not. This effectively gives any content using UDP priority over TCP traffic). This is where another definition of network neutrality comes into play; that it is a policy of equal treatment in regard to users using certain services. Providers are prohibited from blocking or throttling any 'lawful' services and/or any 'lawful' content (where lawful is generally taken to refer to trafficking of certain content like child pornography being illegalized).
A number of bills have come and gone through congress in an effort to pass more regulations concerning network traffic control. The first of these bills comes from around 2005, under the name of the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act. When that failed, congress attempted to include most of the basic legislation as a rider on the COPE Act, though this was also shot down. It was again brought to the floor as the Net Neutrality Bill. This one also failed to pass, and the modern incarnation which is currently in committee hearings is called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. I've included the summary of the bill as part of the presentation and intend to read the main points of the policy, but it essentially prohibits ISPs from: preventing any particular individual from using internet access services, imposing special charges on particular types of content providers, preventing the usage of any 'lawful' device in conjunction with said services, establishing a scheme for prioritizing any given host's traffic over other hosts, and/or installing any network functionality to enable any of the aforementioned activities. It also sets the FCC up as the agency in charge of enforcing said regulations.
The current policy of the FCC isn't actually all that different than the proposed bill, though the regulations tend towards the vague and nebulous. Basically the policy is that all users should have access to lawful content, be able to run lawful applications/services, use lawful devices, and the FCC is directed to promote competition among iSPs and various content providers. A few incidents have arisen where these various powers have been tested. Whether it has proven enough, too much, or too little has been a primary point of contention among the various parties who have thrown their hats into the socio-political arena of ideas concerning this topic.
Comcast has become perhaps the most (in)famous ISP because of a related incident. In October 2007, the company, primarily in an effort to cooperate and comply with RIAA, MPAA, and federal rulings on copyright infringement, decided to block and/or interfere with network traffic assumed to contain pirated music and movies transferred over Bittorrent and other peer-to-peer filesharing software. The method of blocking was rather indirect (a DoS attack using reset packets), but due to the fact that a number of customers had legitimate services hindered or blocked by this incident, Comcast was brought to court by both a class action civil suit and a criminal charge from the FCC. While the criminal charge was not successful (apparently still active in appeals, though), Comcast was charged $16 per share to settle the civil suit. I'll go into more detail on the other events in class, since this summary is already getting long (admittedly, this is the best-documented one).
Let's finish out with the arguments against. The primary argument is not so much against the idea of Net Neutrality per se, as it is that the system already in place gets the job done. More specifically, the market as it is prevents ISPs from enacting the kind of priority systems previously mentioned; partly because the changing of the hardware is either technically infeasible (too expensive if even possible) or would end up cutting that particular ISP off from the rest of the internet, which is hardly the kind of service customers would want or pay for. Another argument against is the consideration of ISPs as the owners of these various communications networks, which they have paid to implement. Several property, which is, as ever, the central right, would seem to dictate that ISPs ought to have complete control over their own networks and their use (much as wireless communications companies have over their networks); and that any regulations to enforce government control would be unconstitutional. The next argument of note is the consideration of innovation in the network core -- that different methods of network management would be more difficult to attempt, or ISPs would be less likely to try in a more regulated environment. More technically inclined individuals provide yet another argument (and this goes back to the original way in which net neutrality is defined) -- that not all services are equal, and for the network to operate efficiently, different services must necessarily be treated differently. That should cover most, if not all, of the views in both directions.
Sources used in gathering the information in this summary and for the presentation are as follows (using Chicago Style Citations):
1 Lessig, Lawrence. “No Tolls on the Internet.” The Washington Post. Posted June 8th, 2006. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html .
2 Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality FAQ.” Posted December 26th, 2008. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html .
3 Markey, Edward (Sponsor D-MA) et al. H.R. 3458 – Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458 .
4 Carter, Nick. “What is Network Neutrality?” Accel Networks: Fixed Wireless Broadband Blog. Posted August 10, 2010. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.accel-networks.com/blog/index.php?q=/2010/08/what-is-net-neutrality.html .
5 Google et al. Open letter to Congress concerning Net Neutrality policy. Dated March 1, 2006. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf .
6 Dortch, Marlene H. Policy Statement. Federal Communications Commission. Dated September 23rd, 2005. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf
7 “Net Neutrality.” Wikipedia. Last modified November 10th, 2010. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
8 Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p. 750. (Referenced in 7).
9. Andrews, Tim. “Does ‘Net Neutrality’ Violate the First Amendment?” Americans for Tax Reform. Posted November 11th, 2009. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.atr.org/net-neutrality-violate-first-amendment-a4189
10. Majoras, Deborah et al. “Broadband Competition Policy.” FTC Staff Report June 2007. Accessed November 23rd, 2010. http://www.ftc.gov/reports/broadband/v070000report.pdf
11. Solomon, David H. et al. “In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC. And Affiliated Companies.” Federal Communications Commission. Accessed November 23rd. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A2.pdf
Monday, November 1, 2010
Voting Machine Security (CMPT 335 Assignment 9)
Security in the Ballot Box - Issues with Electronic Voting Machines (Part A & B)
For this assignment I decided to look into the recent allegations of voting machine malfunctions in Las Vegas. I would like to begin by giving a brief summary of events according to local newspapers and accounts. I should like to follow up with some information about the particular voting machine used and any relevant security concerns having to do with the specific machine. This essay will end on my thoughts on the issue -- whether it is being handled effectively, whether it will affect the upcoming election, and so on.
According to some early voters in Boulder City, Nevada, before getting a chance to cast their ballots the voting machines already had Democrat Harry Reid’s name selected. It’s not clear if this was already selected as a default (and could be changed) or whether the printed paper ballot would force a vote for Mr. Reid. Election officials claim that their poll workers have heard no complaints on the matter. Furthermore Mr. Lemox (the Registrar) claims such malfunctions are impossible, given the technology being used.
While the model of voting machine went unmentioned in the mass media articles, according to an article on truthout.com the model in question is the Sequioa AVC Edge, which is apparently secure enough to emulate pac-man on – without removing the tamper-evident seals, even. Now, whether Sequoia has updated their model to be more secure now (and whether truthout’s information on which model is being used is credible) I do not know. But, the information taken at face value certainly fails to inspire confidence in the security of Nevada voting. Furthermore, the New Jersey’s Center for Information Age Technology ran a number of tests on this particular model, and while functionality passed most of the criteria given by the State Attorney General, there are some interesting exceptions mentioned. Specifically of note is that the machine’s paper ballot printer needs to be refilled about once every 120 voters, it doesn’t keep a log of when the paper is refilled, and during a refill, the stored paper ballots are accessible and subject to tampering. All of this leads to a number of conclusions, few of them reassuring.
While the machines have no apparent defect in and of themselves, it seems like they are relatively easily hacked into and reprogrammed. Even regular maintenance allows stored votes to be at risk. Given that, it is not hard to believe it possible that the allegations made about machines set up to cast votes for the Democrat by default may be true. And, if these are indeed the voting systems in use, it seems Mr. Lemox and other state officials seem to have jumped the gun a bit in declaring these machines inviolable.
References:
German, Jeff. “Audit Resolves Voting Irregularity Questions.” Las Vegas Review-Journal. Oct. 28, 2010. Accessed Oct. 30th, 2010. http://www.lvrj.com/news/audit-resolves-questions-of-irregularities-105990348.html .
“County Denies Voting Machine Malfunction Claims” Fox 5 News, Las Vegas. Oct. 26, 2010. Accessed Oct. 30th, 2010 http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25524494/detail.html .
“County Denies Voting Machine Malfunction Claims” Fox 5 News, Las Vegas. Oct. 26, 2010. Accessed Oct. 30th, 2010 http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25524494/detail.html .
Friedman, Brad. “Hacking Harry Reid (or Sharron’s Angle).” Oct. 26, 2010. Accessed Oct. 30th, 2010. http://www.truth-out.org/hacking-harry-reid-or-sharrons-angle64548
Feldman, Ariel J and J. Alex Halderman. “PAC-MAN on the Sequoia AVC-Edge DRE voting machine.” http://www.cse.umich.edu/~jhalderm/pacman/
“Report to the Office of the Attorney General: Sequoia AVC Edge Voter-verified Paper Record System Assessment.” New Jersey Institute of Technology Center for Information Age Technology. July 2007. Accessed Oct. 30th, 2010. http://nj.gov/state/elections/Hearing-Reports-7.07/NJIT-Edge-report-7.07.pdf
(B) Impressions on technology in voting
As long as I can remember, I have read articles and watched television news around election time, detailing stories of voter fraud or election fraud of one type or another. So, I would like to detail a few recurring threads that always seem to come to the fore around voting time (well, my personal experiences and impressions anyway) and discuss whether or not technology has improved these things.
First of all, I would like to point out that doubts and worries over the accuracy of ballot counts long predate their automation. Whether you are reading Horace Greeley’s accounts about the corrupt Democrat machine in the 1800s, or about voter intimidation in the South during and after the Jim Crow era (where the Klu Klux Klan tried to force everyone to vote Democrat)... such concerns are hardly limited to the computer era. In more recent history, the Helping Americans Vote Act of 2002 essentially budgeted something in the neighborhood of $2 billion of federal funds to improve many counties’ electoral systems. This lead to the widespread use of electronic voting machines, digitized voter registration databases, and was aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 presidential election in Florida (where so-called ‘butterfly ballots’ supposedly led to voter confusion and a long cycle of recounts were finally put to an end by a Supreme Court decision). Did this harm or help the accuracy of our voting system?
The cynical side of me wants to say it ultimately accomplished nothing. Whether it’s the aforementioned issues in Las Vegas, or the odiously suspicious election of Al Franken in Minnesota a year or two ago, it all comes down to how much we trust the poll workers to honestly and competently count the ballots at the end of the day. It’s ultimately the same question whether we’re asking them to manually count those votes, or to provide physical security to prevent the hacking of voter machines. On the bright side, it has made the poll workers life easier, in that the counting is automated, now. And for the voter, a touch screen is easy to use, and certainly less annoying than butterfly ballots. Though, in turn, voting machines are more expensive to buy and maintain than, say, marking down your vote with pen and paper. And, if environmentalism is your fetish of choice, the requirement of printing out each ballot for extra verification means you’re not really saving on paper. So, all in all, I have to say the computerization of voting has made things easier in some ways, but also more expensive and just as subject to suspicion.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Are Morals Axiomatic or Can We Reach Them Via Reason Alone?
Today I should like to explore what I think is a failing of Rational Constructivism (the theorists of which refer to themselves as "anti-moralists); that we ought to only do those things we can reason out an explanation for, and avoid making decisions as to how to act based on base and vulgar superstition. So what is the failing with this belief? Well, where do you start reasoning from? Since the topic is morality, let's take an appropriate question and see how Christian philosophy explains it and then see how Rational Constructivism answers it.
Is murder wrong? Why?
Christian philosophy would answer this in a seemingly simplistic way -- that yes, it's wrong to murder because, essentially, the Bible tells us so. If we are to take C. S. Lewis' anecdotal "common sense" approach, this is further backed up by nigh-instinctual human feelings, some specific "sense" almost akin to the physical ones, that is consistent and standard across humanity (and 'sense' seems to be a good analogy as some people seem to have relatively strong, weak, or no morality at all, much as each man's quality of sight and sound are rather relative). More to the point, murder is wrong because the 10 commandments forbid it and Jesus' Golden Rule (under which all actions should be measured) says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you;" most of us would prefer not to be murdered, so in following this rule we do not in turn murder.
Rationalists seem to find such an explanation insulting -- they would equate it to submitting oneself to, again, base and vulgar superstition; not doing one's own thinking. Surely, an intellectual would have a more dignified explanation where belief is not an issue in complying...right? To paraphrase a response I got from this inquiry, "Yes, because it does harm."
So apparently, I've been had. I thought this guy was a rationalist and an atheist, yet here he is, adopting a moral that says "do no harm" as an axiom. I asked "and why should we do no harm?" but he said he had already answered my question and intimated that further questioning was a sign of obstinacy on my part.
Must we be left to our own to determine how a true Rational Constructivist would frame his argument? I suppose we shall have to make as honest an attempt as can be made; and do correct me if the following conjecture mischaracterizes in any way, shape, or form, the philosophies of pure rationalism.
Plato put forward one tool we might use: "Act for the greater good." But then, what is the greater good? If we deign to turn to the public opinion on the matter -- assuming that surely, the public must know what's in their best interests, right? -- we get an inconsistent set of answers which varies temporally and regionally. You might think inflicting pain was bad, right? Not always -- De Sade, Sartre, and any number of ascetics (especially Buddhists) seem to value pain and suffering. Of course, even had we found a consistent public opinion which held sway, we would then be left with the issue of explaining why the public opinion should form an axiom from which to build our arguments.
Insomuch as most Rationalists tend to view themselves as men of science, which consists largely of divining how things work by observation and experiment, we ought to expect them to abhor sophistry and relativism since neither mathematics nor science work without some basic qualities of consistency and immutability. (For example, if we define ourselves some numerical representations for counting in base ten, 1 + 1 should always be 2; it can't sometimes be 3 and sometimes be 0). But yet, that seems to be what we're left with with a purely Rational approach. We cannot apparently conclude what is good and what is bad without adopting some axiom on its face value.
Is murder wrong? Why?
Christian philosophy would answer this in a seemingly simplistic way -- that yes, it's wrong to murder because, essentially, the Bible tells us so. If we are to take C. S. Lewis' anecdotal "common sense" approach, this is further backed up by nigh-instinctual human feelings, some specific "sense" almost akin to the physical ones, that is consistent and standard across humanity (and 'sense' seems to be a good analogy as some people seem to have relatively strong, weak, or no morality at all, much as each man's quality of sight and sound are rather relative). More to the point, murder is wrong because the 10 commandments forbid it and Jesus' Golden Rule (under which all actions should be measured) says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you;" most of us would prefer not to be murdered, so in following this rule we do not in turn murder.
Rationalists seem to find such an explanation insulting -- they would equate it to submitting oneself to, again, base and vulgar superstition; not doing one's own thinking. Surely, an intellectual would have a more dignified explanation where belief is not an issue in complying...right? To paraphrase a response I got from this inquiry, "Yes, because it does harm."
So apparently, I've been had. I thought this guy was a rationalist and an atheist, yet here he is, adopting a moral that says "do no harm" as an axiom. I asked "and why should we do no harm?" but he said he had already answered my question and intimated that further questioning was a sign of obstinacy on my part.
Must we be left to our own to determine how a true Rational Constructivist would frame his argument? I suppose we shall have to make as honest an attempt as can be made; and do correct me if the following conjecture mischaracterizes in any way, shape, or form, the philosophies of pure rationalism.
Plato put forward one tool we might use: "Act for the greater good." But then, what is the greater good? If we deign to turn to the public opinion on the matter -- assuming that surely, the public must know what's in their best interests, right? -- we get an inconsistent set of answers which varies temporally and regionally. You might think inflicting pain was bad, right? Not always -- De Sade, Sartre, and any number of ascetics (especially Buddhists) seem to value pain and suffering. Of course, even had we found a consistent public opinion which held sway, we would then be left with the issue of explaining why the public opinion should form an axiom from which to build our arguments.
Insomuch as most Rationalists tend to view themselves as men of science, which consists largely of divining how things work by observation and experiment, we ought to expect them to abhor sophistry and relativism since neither mathematics nor science work without some basic qualities of consistency and immutability. (For example, if we define ourselves some numerical representations for counting in base ten, 1 + 1 should always be 2; it can't sometimes be 3 and sometimes be 0). But yet, that seems to be what we're left with with a purely Rational approach. We cannot apparently conclude what is good and what is bad without adopting some axiom on its face value.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Passing Thought: Applying Computer Science Theory to Economic Theory
So I have been reading The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek Volume 1: The Fatal Conceit - The Errors of Socialism
. Haven't quite finished the first chapter, even but it brought some interesting thoughts that I wanted to write down before I forgot them.
-- Hayek makes a reference back to Adam Smith
's discussion of basic supply and demand, "the invisible hand" and all... I got to thinking, maybe one of the reasons our economy does so well at what it does (with pricing serving as an indicator that serves to automatically adjusts supply and demand to prevent overproduction and overconsumption) is essentially a form of information hiding and modularity.
I suppose I should explain those terms. Information hiding is best explained in terms of functions and arguments. For a programmer, when you're making use of another programmer's function, your usual concern is what the function returns and what arguments are required in what order. If you should decide to tool around with this other programmer's code without understanding how and why he programmed it the way he did, you will almost certainly end up with a function that is less efficient - and worse, you may break the function altogether. Thus, there is a need to prevent the first programmer from changing the second programmer's code. I won't bore you with the variety of methods how you might go about this in an object-oriented context, but I think you get the concept.
Modularity fits along the same lines -- basically it's the concept of breaking up a program from one big "main" function into a bunch of smaller ones; each usually accomplishing a very simple, easy-to-define task. Under these circumstances it is much easier to debug a malfunctioning program because you can usually narrow down the function that is problematic and fix it accordingly.
Now, how does this all fit in with economics? Well in early times, and even today, the consumer rarely knows how a particular product arrived at a given store. He usually doesn't know how it was manufactured, sometimes he doesn't even know all the contents! My thought is this: what if this not knowing is part of why our market system works so well? And if that is so, isn't it all the more reason command economies (such as Socialism/Fascism/Communism/Mercantilism/Absolutism/etc) rarely if ever produce positive results (nevermind trying to get results better than what the market system provides)?
Let me know in the comments what you think of the idea. -- I'll go back to reading.
. Haven't quite finished the first chapter, even but it brought some interesting thoughts that I wanted to write down before I forgot them.-- Hayek makes a reference back to Adam Smith
's discussion of basic supply and demand, "the invisible hand" and all... I got to thinking, maybe one of the reasons our economy does so well at what it does (with pricing serving as an indicator that serves to automatically adjusts supply and demand to prevent overproduction and overconsumption) is essentially a form of information hiding and modularity.I suppose I should explain those terms. Information hiding is best explained in terms of functions and arguments. For a programmer, when you're making use of another programmer's function, your usual concern is what the function returns and what arguments are required in what order. If you should decide to tool around with this other programmer's code without understanding how and why he programmed it the way he did, you will almost certainly end up with a function that is less efficient - and worse, you may break the function altogether. Thus, there is a need to prevent the first programmer from changing the second programmer's code. I won't bore you with the variety of methods how you might go about this in an object-oriented context, but I think you get the concept.
Modularity fits along the same lines -- basically it's the concept of breaking up a program from one big "main" function into a bunch of smaller ones; each usually accomplishing a very simple, easy-to-define task. Under these circumstances it is much easier to debug a malfunctioning program because you can usually narrow down the function that is problematic and fix it accordingly.
Now, how does this all fit in with economics? Well in early times, and even today, the consumer rarely knows how a particular product arrived at a given store. He usually doesn't know how it was manufactured, sometimes he doesn't even know all the contents! My thought is this: what if this not knowing is part of why our market system works so well? And if that is so, isn't it all the more reason command economies (such as Socialism/Fascism/Communism/Mercantilism/Absolutism/etc) rarely if ever produce positive results (nevermind trying to get results better than what the market system provides)?
Let me know in the comments what you think of the idea. -- I'll go back to reading.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Analytical Report on 5 Topics from Speech Class
The following is an analytical report I had to write for my speech class, covering 5 things over 5 pages we studied in class and my opinions/experience with them. Some of it may be kind of common sense stuff and thus rather boring, but lemme know what ye webonauts out there think via comments.
Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs – The Boomerang Effect
Among the more interesting concepts discussed in our Speech class this semester was “The Boomerang Effect.” This is, basically, a turnaround of a person’s opinion after they have given deeper thought to something they were convinced of earlier on a Peripheral basis. (Peripheral referring to quick-response decisions made when offered reciprocation, consistency, social proof, etc). In my own experiences I have seen and heard many such peripheral persuasions, and my own sense of pride makes me prejudice any argument presented this way, especially after I have agreed to do something based on said agreements. For example, whenever my elder sister asks me for some favor or another (such as recently when she got me to drive her dryer down to a shop to get fixed and back up to her apartment) by way of a “guilt trip” (usually suggesting she’d get my father to carry out said errand, even at the risk of possible injury), I usually find myself resenting her for it. So, yes, the boomerang effect is a real psychological aftereffect.
“It’s For The Children!!” And Other Appeals to Emotion – Logical Fallacy?
Prior to presenting persuasive speeches, we went over a variety of logical fallacies to avoid in making arguments, and while “Appeal to Emotion” isn’t technically a logical fallacy per se, I think it fits in a bit with what we were just discussing (Boomerang Effect) and is thus, well, kind of a logical fallacy. While I can not speak for others, when I hear politicians on television or the internet making arguments based around emotionalism (usually accompanied by a little bit of exaggerated hyperbole) I find myself discouraged from listening to whatever otherwise logical arguments they were trying to make to support a given course of action. A good example of this in recent memory is found in the healthcare debate, where many politicians are using an ever-changing number of “millions of people” who are uninsured as a reason to further regulate hospitals, doctors, and related insurance companies. While it is not necessarily a logical fallacy to point out a societal problem and ask for empathy on behalf of the afflicted, it is at the least distasteful to use the existence of said problem as a reason to “do something.” So, again, while appeal to emotion is not a logical fallacy in and of itself, I think it is fair to say that it could cause a boomerang effect in an audience and is inadvisable, or at least merits careful thought before using.
On Powerpoint Usage – Keep It Simple!
When presenting a speech on a given topic we were advised against using very complex and fancy powerpoints; advice which in my experience is right on the money. A recent project I was doing for my Corporate Finance class required a powerpoint to accompany a ten minute presentation on whether or not starting a software development company was a worthwhile investment. How lucky I was to be in Speech class at the same time! Where many of my classmates had used a wide variety of colors in their powerpoints, and images that often obscured the spreadsheets and numerical figures which were supposed to be the meat of the research; my partner and I had a simple, straight-to-the-point set of slides to get across our main points. While the grades have yet to come in I am reasonably confident that we probably scored fairly well overall, and likely got full points for the powerpoint. Therefore, I have to agree with the book and lectures on powerpoint presentations, that conciseness and clarity are far more important than boisterous effects and fashionista design.
Cultivation Theory – How Accurate Are Our “Informed” Perceptions?
Do TV and the Internet present an accurate image of the world around us? Most of us would likely agree that television and movies give people over-exaggerated perceptions of the kinds of physical beauty and intelligence they should expect in potential mates, for starters. Certainly not every guy has as clean a face as Brad Pitt and certainly not all women are as curvaceous as Angelina Jolie, yet I wonder how many marriages have been broken because one spouse or the other thinks not only that they can find someone better, but that they deserve someone better than whomever they are currently paired with? I have personally seen such “entitled” behavior present in my sisters and female cousins (granted, their chosen beaus are often rather unimpressive individuals…perhaps that is only my own twisted perceptions speaking, though), where they always seem to think that “the grass is greener” someplace or with someone else.
Of course, looks are not the only things that are perceived improperly; I doubt you would find it surprising that a number of political positions held by a number of people are often misrepresented on a daily basis. It almost seems that the more fallacious an argument, the more news coverage it gets. As a for instance, a strong memory of mine is scenes of people pulling cots and mattresses into the House of Representatives back in the middle of the nineties, when Clinton, the president at the time, was vetoing and trying to shut out Republicans from important budget votes. I can not tell you how many people I have run into who credit Clinton with the budget and the net surplus that was arrived at as a result of that moment in history. Then again, maybe it is I who have been given “a spin” on that particular bit of history.
Uses and Gratification Theory
How easy is it to close your ears, hum to yourself, and ignore everything you do not want to hear, only paying attention to the sources you want to listen to? Far too easy, according to our Speech textbook. The idea that people in this day and age who use social media on the internet tend to close their circle off to other points of view is certainly easy to imagine. And surely, there is a bubble I could lock myself into on the net. Take twitter, for example, the much-maligned 140-word-limit social media service. There exists a way of “tweeting” to a certain set of individuals and only that certain set, and you can block and ignore anyone who would say something you do not want to hear. In particular, there’s a “channel” of sorts on twitter known as “#p2” which is full of people who generally hold ‘liberal’ points of view… and a channel called “#tcot” typically representing the opposing side. So here we have two bubbles of mutually exclusive groups and a method available to tune out opposing sides. Does this happen in practice? Surprisingly, no. You see, internet communication has a long history of “trolling,” “flame wars,” and “baiting” in which people go online with the sole purpose of debating people on the other side, either to ridicule them by baiting them into an argument where they look foolish, or to ‘win’ an argument, thus showing off supposed intellectual fortitude. All in all, I think this meme-like behavior will prevent social media users to ever completely cordon themselves off (though some certainly give a good effort).
Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs – The Boomerang Effect
Among the more interesting concepts discussed in our Speech class this semester was “The Boomerang Effect.” This is, basically, a turnaround of a person’s opinion after they have given deeper thought to something they were convinced of earlier on a Peripheral basis. (Peripheral referring to quick-response decisions made when offered reciprocation, consistency, social proof, etc). In my own experiences I have seen and heard many such peripheral persuasions, and my own sense of pride makes me prejudice any argument presented this way, especially after I have agreed to do something based on said agreements. For example, whenever my elder sister asks me for some favor or another (such as recently when she got me to drive her dryer down to a shop to get fixed and back up to her apartment) by way of a “guilt trip” (usually suggesting she’d get my father to carry out said errand, even at the risk of possible injury), I usually find myself resenting her for it. So, yes, the boomerang effect is a real psychological aftereffect.
“It’s For The Children!!” And Other Appeals to Emotion – Logical Fallacy?
Prior to presenting persuasive speeches, we went over a variety of logical fallacies to avoid in making arguments, and while “Appeal to Emotion” isn’t technically a logical fallacy per se, I think it fits in a bit with what we were just discussing (Boomerang Effect) and is thus, well, kind of a logical fallacy. While I can not speak for others, when I hear politicians on television or the internet making arguments based around emotionalism (usually accompanied by a little bit of exaggerated hyperbole) I find myself discouraged from listening to whatever otherwise logical arguments they were trying to make to support a given course of action. A good example of this in recent memory is found in the healthcare debate, where many politicians are using an ever-changing number of “millions of people” who are uninsured as a reason to further regulate hospitals, doctors, and related insurance companies. While it is not necessarily a logical fallacy to point out a societal problem and ask for empathy on behalf of the afflicted, it is at the least distasteful to use the existence of said problem as a reason to “do something.” So, again, while appeal to emotion is not a logical fallacy in and of itself, I think it is fair to say that it could cause a boomerang effect in an audience and is inadvisable, or at least merits careful thought before using.
On Powerpoint Usage – Keep It Simple!
When presenting a speech on a given topic we were advised against using very complex and fancy powerpoints; advice which in my experience is right on the money. A recent project I was doing for my Corporate Finance class required a powerpoint to accompany a ten minute presentation on whether or not starting a software development company was a worthwhile investment. How lucky I was to be in Speech class at the same time! Where many of my classmates had used a wide variety of colors in their powerpoints, and images that often obscured the spreadsheets and numerical figures which were supposed to be the meat of the research; my partner and I had a simple, straight-to-the-point set of slides to get across our main points. While the grades have yet to come in I am reasonably confident that we probably scored fairly well overall, and likely got full points for the powerpoint. Therefore, I have to agree with the book and lectures on powerpoint presentations, that conciseness and clarity are far more important than boisterous effects and fashionista design.
Cultivation Theory – How Accurate Are Our “Informed” Perceptions?
Do TV and the Internet present an accurate image of the world around us? Most of us would likely agree that television and movies give people over-exaggerated perceptions of the kinds of physical beauty and intelligence they should expect in potential mates, for starters. Certainly not every guy has as clean a face as Brad Pitt and certainly not all women are as curvaceous as Angelina Jolie, yet I wonder how many marriages have been broken because one spouse or the other thinks not only that they can find someone better, but that they deserve someone better than whomever they are currently paired with? I have personally seen such “entitled” behavior present in my sisters and female cousins (granted, their chosen beaus are often rather unimpressive individuals…perhaps that is only my own twisted perceptions speaking, though), where they always seem to think that “the grass is greener” someplace or with someone else.
Of course, looks are not the only things that are perceived improperly; I doubt you would find it surprising that a number of political positions held by a number of people are often misrepresented on a daily basis. It almost seems that the more fallacious an argument, the more news coverage it gets. As a for instance, a strong memory of mine is scenes of people pulling cots and mattresses into the House of Representatives back in the middle of the nineties, when Clinton, the president at the time, was vetoing and trying to shut out Republicans from important budget votes. I can not tell you how many people I have run into who credit Clinton with the budget and the net surplus that was arrived at as a result of that moment in history. Then again, maybe it is I who have been given “a spin” on that particular bit of history.
Uses and Gratification Theory
How easy is it to close your ears, hum to yourself, and ignore everything you do not want to hear, only paying attention to the sources you want to listen to? Far too easy, according to our Speech textbook. The idea that people in this day and age who use social media on the internet tend to close their circle off to other points of view is certainly easy to imagine. And surely, there is a bubble I could lock myself into on the net. Take twitter, for example, the much-maligned 140-word-limit social media service. There exists a way of “tweeting” to a certain set of individuals and only that certain set, and you can block and ignore anyone who would say something you do not want to hear. In particular, there’s a “channel” of sorts on twitter known as “#p2” which is full of people who generally hold ‘liberal’ points of view… and a channel called “#tcot” typically representing the opposing side. So here we have two bubbles of mutually exclusive groups and a method available to tune out opposing sides. Does this happen in practice? Surprisingly, no. You see, internet communication has a long history of “trolling,” “flame wars,” and “baiting” in which people go online with the sole purpose of debating people on the other side, either to ridicule them by baiting them into an argument where they look foolish, or to ‘win’ an argument, thus showing off supposed intellectual fortitude. All in all, I think this meme-like behavior will prevent social media users to ever completely cordon themselves off (though some certainly give a good effort).
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Pondering Manufacturing
For whatever reason I was reflecting this afternoon on a conversation I had awhile back with a friend of the family about manufacturing, quality of goods, and long-term profit seeking vs short-term profit seeking vs liberal ideas. I know, that was a long winded list, but bear with me here.
What got the conversation started was the usual complaint about this or that manufactured diddy from Wal-Mart breaking before you get it out of the store (in this case a plastic attache case thingamajigger whose handle broke off on the way to the checkout line from its own weight). My friend and I both agreed that businesses interested in long term profits have to strike some balance between replaceable goods (so as to have repeat business) and durable, quality goods (so as to make people want said goods in the first place). This is the reason behind the oft-heard "they don't make things like they used to" ... because the companies that made a product that'd last forever didn't have repeat customers.
Which gets me wondering something else...the "green push," so to speak, on manufactured goods is to make things out of materials that decompose quickly, which inevitably leads to deficiencies in terms of durability and reliability. However, what's more environmentally damaging I wonder? Having to change out your appliances and furniture every 5-10 years or having appliances and furniture that last almost or more than the average lifetime? In the first case you have lots and lots and lots of trash (and increasingly more so as population increases) while in the second you still have an increasing number of items to dispose of as population grows, but I should think the rate of growth / population would grow logarithmically instead of exponentially. So, which is better?
Given these two factors, it's only natural that companies, hoping to a) maintain high PR (vis-a-vis being "greener" than the competition) and b) establish a more recurrent need for their product in the market (repeat customers) tend to produce low-quality goods out of quick-decomposition materials. Given the logical conclusion of exponentially more trash to deal with in the future because of these choices, are "environmentalists" really helping the environment with this?
Update 1: Something else relevant that strikes a nerve...all these "I'd Tap That" signs I'm seeing on campus. Wasn't it the environmentalists/nanny staters that got everyone in crisis mode over the pollutants in tap water in the first place, which lead to mass production and popularity of bottled water? More evidence of environmentalism hurting the environment/ecology more than helping it.
What got the conversation started was the usual complaint about this or that manufactured diddy from Wal-Mart breaking before you get it out of the store (in this case a plastic attache case thingamajigger whose handle broke off on the way to the checkout line from its own weight). My friend and I both agreed that businesses interested in long term profits have to strike some balance between replaceable goods (so as to have repeat business) and durable, quality goods (so as to make people want said goods in the first place). This is the reason behind the oft-heard "they don't make things like they used to" ... because the companies that made a product that'd last forever didn't have repeat customers.
Which gets me wondering something else...the "green push," so to speak, on manufactured goods is to make things out of materials that decompose quickly, which inevitably leads to deficiencies in terms of durability and reliability. However, what's more environmentally damaging I wonder? Having to change out your appliances and furniture every 5-10 years or having appliances and furniture that last almost or more than the average lifetime? In the first case you have lots and lots and lots of trash (and increasingly more so as population increases) while in the second you still have an increasing number of items to dispose of as population grows, but I should think the rate of growth / population would grow logarithmically instead of exponentially. So, which is better?
Given these two factors, it's only natural that companies, hoping to a) maintain high PR (vis-a-vis being "greener" than the competition) and b) establish a more recurrent need for their product in the market (repeat customers) tend to produce low-quality goods out of quick-decomposition materials. Given the logical conclusion of exponentially more trash to deal with in the future because of these choices, are "environmentalists" really helping the environment with this?
Update 1: Something else relevant that strikes a nerve...all these "I'd Tap That" signs I'm seeing on campus. Wasn't it the environmentalists/nanny staters that got everyone in crisis mode over the pollutants in tap water in the first place, which lead to mass production and popularity of bottled water? More evidence of environmentalism hurting the environment/ecology more than helping it.
Friday, November 20, 2009
On Real Values (Or, Why I Think Stock Has No Intrinsic Value)
Basic economics says that every item has some "real" value to it based first on a concept called utility value. Second, it has increased or decreased value based on scarcity (supply). Third, it has increased or decreased value based on the various subjective views of the population about said item (demand). I think we can all agree that these are the basic factors surrounding any item.
It is also of note that classic liberal economic theory assumes that the first concept above (what we might call intrinsic, 'real' value) applies to any/all manufactured good and is widely recognized by any/all given populations (IE, build it and they will come, a supply creates its own demand) which is usually true but not always (and the theory is thus 'false' by predicative logical standards).
Why do I mention this when by the title I clearly wanna talk about stock? Because stock is that rare thing which has absolutely no intrinsic value by the virtues of its own existence. That is, the only reason people value it, is because they think they can convince someone else that it's worth more than its current market value (IE they think its 'value' is going to rise amongst the population at large). I should admit, though, that just as a half eaten hot dog has increased value if the other half is in some celebrity's stomach, there is _some_ intrinsic value to owning some nth of a company simply because it's an nth of a certain company (which may have a bit of a celebrity status of its own). And, obviously, owning a large percentage of a company enough to exert influence on the company, and/or stock with regular dividends have their own intrinsic values. But, I digress.
My main point is that, the idea of buying something ONLY because you think you can turn around and sell it to someone else for a higher price especially when said good is pretty much intangible in and of itself... is fundamentally flawed. And, I wonder if, if we didn't have people messing around with stuff like this (especially the derivatives market) the free market would be totally stable?
If you're wondering what got me thinking about this it's Warren Buffet, and a discussion in our business finance class about his idea that a good company never gives their shareholders dividends... I would argue that the idea of holding onto stock (no matter how high the 'value' goes) solely for the purpose of seeing the value increase is patently absurd. Because, again, if the stock is only serving as a better way to store money than ... well, money... what's the point? I mean, sure, you could make oodles of cash, but Buffet's company is strictly nonproductive, only ever redistributing money and capital in the economy, and usually not in the sense of initial investments. I come back to wondering, what is the stock really worth at that point? It's never going to be a controlling interest in the company (in fact, B stocks from Buffet's company can't EVER have voting rights), and the company itself has a relatively low intrinsic value (compare to a company that manufactures something) so the stock has basically none. I dunno, economists out there, am I making sense or am I off my rocker?
It is also of note that classic liberal economic theory assumes that the first concept above (what we might call intrinsic, 'real' value) applies to any/all manufactured good and is widely recognized by any/all given populations (IE, build it and they will come, a supply creates its own demand) which is usually true but not always (and the theory is thus 'false' by predicative logical standards).
Why do I mention this when by the title I clearly wanna talk about stock? Because stock is that rare thing which has absolutely no intrinsic value by the virtues of its own existence. That is, the only reason people value it, is because they think they can convince someone else that it's worth more than its current market value (IE they think its 'value' is going to rise amongst the population at large). I should admit, though, that just as a half eaten hot dog has increased value if the other half is in some celebrity's stomach, there is _some_ intrinsic value to owning some nth of a company simply because it's an nth of a certain company (which may have a bit of a celebrity status of its own). And, obviously, owning a large percentage of a company enough to exert influence on the company, and/or stock with regular dividends have their own intrinsic values. But, I digress.
My main point is that, the idea of buying something ONLY because you think you can turn around and sell it to someone else for a higher price especially when said good is pretty much intangible in and of itself... is fundamentally flawed. And, I wonder if, if we didn't have people messing around with stuff like this (especially the derivatives market) the free market would be totally stable?
If you're wondering what got me thinking about this it's Warren Buffet, and a discussion in our business finance class about his idea that a good company never gives their shareholders dividends... I would argue that the idea of holding onto stock (no matter how high the 'value' goes) solely for the purpose of seeing the value increase is patently absurd. Because, again, if the stock is only serving as a better way to store money than ... well, money... what's the point? I mean, sure, you could make oodles of cash, but Buffet's company is strictly nonproductive, only ever redistributing money and capital in the economy, and usually not in the sense of initial investments. I come back to wondering, what is the stock really worth at that point? It's never going to be a controlling interest in the company (in fact, B stocks from Buffet's company can't EVER have voting rights), and the company itself has a relatively low intrinsic value (compare to a company that manufactures something) so the stock has basically none. I dunno, economists out there, am I making sense or am I off my rocker?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Some Scary Stuff Out There In The World
Now, while I don't typically put much salt into the typical government conspiracy paranoia, this stuff about swine flu vaccinations containing live avian flu is... concerning. Add in the fact that Obama announced swine flu a national emergency just recently, despite mounting skepticism about its seriousness. Remember, take this stuff with a grain of salt, but still, be a little concerned:
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Oh My Stars and Garters
Over at Maggie's Farm they're tossing up oooooold predictions of "technology of tomorrow" type stuff. I remember seeing/watching the same kind of thing when I was a kid (albeit the stuff I watched was more flying cars and giant holograms / circa 1990s don'cha'know). Still, amazing to see how far off the mark predictions can be, or how close to the future they can be.
(H/T Captain Capitalism)
Still, kinda makes me wonder, with the increasing amounts of red tape and gov't bureaucracy involved in getting patent rights these days (and the increasing amount of frivolousness allowed with some patents)... I wonder what, if any, future technology is gonna come about by, say, 2050. Obviously the incremental decrease in size of transistors and increasing use of high speed fiber-optic technologies are going to continue, but what about entirely new devices, or ways of doing things?
Don't really want to sink into paranoia (oh noes, net neutrality!) but I think the looks of things in a general sense leave me somewhat cynical, at least to a certain extent. Will say the allosphere project looks damn cool, though. On second thought, maybe I'm not all that pessimistic that technology will advance, but I am pessimistic about the pace. C'mon people, let's get our priorities straight: Socialism in the name of helping the poor (and ultimately only increasing the # of poor) or eliminating the corporate tax and letting the sky be the limit on technological investment and innovation?
(H/T Captain Capitalism)
Still, kinda makes me wonder, with the increasing amounts of red tape and gov't bureaucracy involved in getting patent rights these days (and the increasing amount of frivolousness allowed with some patents)... I wonder what, if any, future technology is gonna come about by, say, 2050. Obviously the incremental decrease in size of transistors and increasing use of high speed fiber-optic technologies are going to continue, but what about entirely new devices, or ways of doing things?
Don't really want to sink into paranoia (oh noes, net neutrality!) but I think the looks of things in a general sense leave me somewhat cynical, at least to a certain extent. Will say the allosphere project looks damn cool, though. On second thought, maybe I'm not all that pessimistic that technology will advance, but I am pessimistic about the pace. C'mon people, let's get our priorities straight: Socialism in the name of helping the poor (and ultimately only increasing the # of poor) or eliminating the corporate tax and letting the sky be the limit on technological investment and innovation?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Discussion on Labels
So, checking out Gadfly's site and I came across some interesting ideas from Conservative Wahoo about coining "neo-socialism" as a term to describe the Obama administration's leanings.
I think the main problem I have with the phrase is that it's suggesting that A) Obama has really thought out his positions in a meaningful way, and B) this administrations ideas ARE new which is something of a fallacy.
Addressing point A, the impression that I've gotten from Obama, from the very beginning was that he was a political opportunist, above all else. This is perhaps why Edward Kennedy (black spot on the Kennedy name as he is/was) endorsed him, maybe sensing a kinship in the lack of a real philosophical foundation upon which to base his politics. The kind of people he associates/d himself with are not just left-leaning radicals, they are also corrupt in every sense of the word (Blago, Rezko, even the scams that went on where Michelle O worked. I'm not saying he's not pursuing socialist-style philosophies, but rather, it's not clear that he's philosophically motivated in the first place. It is therefore a case of jumping the gun to coin a term to define the philosophy backing his policies.
To address point B, I'll go back to the fallacy we were indoctrinated into believing in high school economics and US history, as well as what I've seen in college economics classes. That is, that Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes presented ideas which were new and untried. If we go back to the "age of enlightenment" in 1700s France we find the same basic ideas from the likes of Rousseau and before that, back to the Greek philosophers you have some branches of stoicism relating much the same ideas. As far as policies based on political philosophies, a lot of the considerations about a federally controlled national bank issuing money and purposefully inflating it have been tried throughout history; by the Khans during their control of China; by the French (again under absolutism in the 1700s) and even a bit of the same under the era of Mercantilism by the British and the Dutch. I could go on but I think you get my drift: Obama's ideas, much the same as Marx's, are not in any sense new. They've been tried by many people in many places in many eras, and have never worked. Period. Constantly trying to reinvent the wheel is not going to lead to major progress (another word relating back to another group of people who tried and failed at centrally planned economies).
To add even more confusion to the mix, the term "liberal" which is now used to generally reference a person with the same ideas as all the bozos I just mentioned, actually used to refer to us; that is, conservatism today is/was also referred to as liberalism at least up until the 1930s or so. In fact, the "movement" of "neoliberalism" is in fact a move towards freeing markets from overactive government regulators. I just wish there was some easy way to wipe all these ideas and policies that have essentially been proven wrong, time and time again, to be thrown off the political map; they don't belong.
I think the main problem I have with the phrase is that it's suggesting that A) Obama has really thought out his positions in a meaningful way, and B) this administrations ideas ARE new which is something of a fallacy.
Addressing point A, the impression that I've gotten from Obama, from the very beginning was that he was a political opportunist, above all else. This is perhaps why Edward Kennedy (black spot on the Kennedy name as he is/was) endorsed him, maybe sensing a kinship in the lack of a real philosophical foundation upon which to base his politics. The kind of people he associates/d himself with are not just left-leaning radicals, they are also corrupt in every sense of the word (Blago, Rezko, even the scams that went on where Michelle O worked. I'm not saying he's not pursuing socialist-style philosophies, but rather, it's not clear that he's philosophically motivated in the first place. It is therefore a case of jumping the gun to coin a term to define the philosophy backing his policies.
To address point B, I'll go back to the fallacy we were indoctrinated into believing in high school economics and US history, as well as what I've seen in college economics classes. That is, that Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes presented ideas which were new and untried. If we go back to the "age of enlightenment" in 1700s France we find the same basic ideas from the likes of Rousseau and before that, back to the Greek philosophers you have some branches of stoicism relating much the same ideas. As far as policies based on political philosophies, a lot of the considerations about a federally controlled national bank issuing money and purposefully inflating it have been tried throughout history; by the Khans during their control of China; by the French (again under absolutism in the 1700s) and even a bit of the same under the era of Mercantilism by the British and the Dutch. I could go on but I think you get my drift: Obama's ideas, much the same as Marx's, are not in any sense new. They've been tried by many people in many places in many eras, and have never worked. Period. Constantly trying to reinvent the wheel is not going to lead to major progress (another word relating back to another group of people who tried and failed at centrally planned economies).
To add even more confusion to the mix, the term "liberal" which is now used to generally reference a person with the same ideas as all the bozos I just mentioned, actually used to refer to us; that is, conservatism today is/was also referred to as liberalism at least up until the 1930s or so. In fact, the "movement" of "neoliberalism" is in fact a move towards freeing markets from overactive government regulators. I just wish there was some easy way to wipe all these ideas and policies that have essentially been proven wrong, time and time again, to be thrown off the political map; they don't belong.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Overpopulation Essay
This is a research paper I wrote waaaaay back in my "research paper" class in my Freshman year of college. Enjoy!
14 July 2005
On The Union of Concerned Scientist Warning to the World
Concerning the Threat of Overpopulation
In November of 1992, one thousand seven hundred scientists affiliated with the Union of Concerned Scientists1 signed the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which was written by Henry Kendall. In this ‘warning’ Kendall says that:
"Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today’s 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition."
How true is this? Is the world really approaching overpopulation? I decided to research the topic and find out, dividing the topic into several basic questions. First, what constitutes overpopulation? Second, is the world facing overpopulation as a problem today? Third, what solutions have been suggested to prevent overpopulation or to at least slow population growth? For those solutions that have already been implemented, what has worked, what has not worked, and why? Lastly, if in actuality population decline is the modern problem (as much of my research has suggested), how did we get there, what problems does it pose, and how do we get back into population growth (if that is needed)? With these questions in mind, I began my research.
What is overpopulation? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, it is “The condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash.” Kendall and the world scientists seem to agree with this definition. But the problem with this definition is that one can almost say they “feel” the world is overpopulated, or a city is overpopulated, because in their eyes it may fit the aforementioned description. Take, for instance, Salt Lake City. If one is used to a small town atmosphere, the city atmosphere can feel so uncomfortable that it lowers one’s quality of life. The crime rate (especially the murder rate) that naturally rises with the population density might be labeled as a type of population crash. And to top it all off, the air pollution is undoubtedly worse than in places outside the city. So if such conditions are natural for any areas with high population densities (or even medium population densities, such as Salt Lake City), when does one say that there is overpopulation? For my own research, I have decided that severe environmental damage, engendering the over-consumption of resources to the point that the surrounding areas have become barren, and severe changes in quality of life for the residents of an area (such that the majority of people are without food, water, and shelter) are required to call it overpopulation. With this clarification, places like Los Angeles (which I have visited) are not overpopulated because people in those cities have a high quality of life (while there are hungry homeless, they are far from being a majority), the pollution is not so bad as to seriously affect the surrounding environment, and crime is not so bad as to kill a noticeable percentage of those cities’ populations. To call a place overpopulated, then, would require: a) severe negative environmental impact; b) people with little to no quality of life, where any food and shelter is scarce, and quality food and shelter is non-existent; and c) a mass die-off from malnutrition and starvation (death from disease has too many extraneous factors for use as a good criterion).
Now that we have a definition of what overpopulation is, and more importantly, what conditions would exist to suggest overpopulation, is the world overpopulated? Do we have enough resources to support our current world population? Well, from what Tweeten and Zulauf, authors of the Futurist study “Feeding the World: the Long-term Outlook,” say, the world is still harvesting resources, most countries have surpluses of these resources stocked up, and there are more than enough resources to support the current population. Tweeten and Zulauf make this clear when they point out that farms in general are yielding far more per acre now than ever before, even to the point that many plots of farmland are being re-zoned as residential or commercial areas.2
While there are certainly places that have few resources now, such as sub-Saharan Africa, it is not as if they’ve run out of resources. Thomas Sowell, in one of his columns for Townhall.com, makes clear that Africa’s problems are bad leadership, bad geographical location, and bad foreign aid policies from other nations rather than just too many people with too few resources. This is made even clearer when Sowell contrasts the centrally-planned governments of some African nations with the free-market economy of the Ivory Coast. Under then-president Felix Houphouet-Boigny’s democratic government, that country evidently prospered. This shows that overpopulation is, if even a factor, not the decisive factor in causing sub-Saharan Africa’s various problems.
As for environmental problems, who’s to say that the problems we have now, or think we have now, are directly related to overpopulation? I’ve heard lots of arguments by environmentalists that things like deforestation and the loss of species to extinction are caused by rapid human expansion. At the same time, there are many people who I’ve heard claim that the Earth can handle anything that humans do to it, even so far as nuclear winter. And there are, of course, lots of people (myself included) who hold opinions that are somewhere in between. So which argument most accurately describes the state of the environment, and the causes for that state? The main question remains whether or not the environment shows signs of devastation due to human overpopulation. Mark Lynas, in an article for the British magazine New Statesman, claims that because of human overpopulation one fifth of bird species, forty percent of mammals and fish, one third of amphibians, and up to one half of all plant species are threatened with extinction.3 He says, in his title even, that “The Biomass of Human Bodies Now Exceeds by a Hundred Times that of any Large Animal Species that Ever Existed on Land.” So there is a lot of people on the planet Earth, and a lot of lower species are facing extinction. While there is evidence that human encroachment might force certain species’ habitats to be changed (leading to possible extinction), that alone doesn’t show overpopulation. I found nothing in Lynas’ argument that gives evidence of environmental damage due to human overpopulation.
Thus, it can be seen that there is not an overpopulation problem today, but what about the future? The United Nations Population Fund’s most recent studies show that the current world fertility rate4 is about two and nine tenths, and steadily decreasing. According to Micheal Meyer, a two and one tenth fertility rate is required for population stability, so it appears that the world population will soon move into decline. The studies indicate that Europe’s native populations are already in decline, with Italy and Spain leading with a rate of one and two tenths. Those studies also show that France and Ireland have the highest averages in Europe, with a fertility rate of one and eight tenths. They find that Germany’s fertility rate, and the average in Europe, is at one and four tenths.5 Another interesting fact illuminated by the United Nations Population Fund studies is that, along with Europe, all the developed nations in SE Asia as well as China are already in a state of native population decline. Furthermore, it seems that America is the only developed nation with a fertility rate above replacement levels, but it is barely so. The United Nations Population Fund goes on to estimate a worldwide fertility rate drop below two and one tenth by the year two thousand fifty. Even the nations in the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa (which currently have rates well above replacement, according to the UNFPA) are expected to have below replacement levels of fertility rates by that time.6
So what, then, are the effects of population decline? According to Meyer and Boorse, those nations whose leaders were misguided enough to start social security programs (or similar policies) will be in for deep economic troubles. Meyer and Boorse say the worst problems will arise in China, which is expected to have the so called ‘4-2-1' situation. That is, four grandparents and two parents dependent on the income of one child. According to Meyer, this problem arises mainly from the population decline (which means less labor available in every generation, leading to less prosperity, leading to less wages), along with bad health policies (which lead to people retiring at a younger age). More importantly, Meyer says, this will force the government to lower whatever benefits are provided by their social security system, or to raise the taxes on the workers, or both.7 The same problem will undoubtedly occur in every country with a social security system or social security-like policies.
But what of the positive effects of population decline? Tweeten and Zulauf suggest that negative population growth (that is, decline) will alleviate any fears of global food crises. All of the sources I’ve read agree that there will be less crowding, greater per capita income, healthier living, and a healthier environment after a population decline.8 Do these outweigh the problems? While it might be good for China if its financial policies force a government collapse (as discussed earlier), recessions and/or depressions rivaling, or even surpassing, that of black Thursday’s are a bleak future to think of. Granted, not every nation will face this (as not all nations have social security or like programs, and there is the possibility that those countries that currently have social security might rid themselves of it, seeing the coming population decline), but for those that will, are the positive effects worth potential economic ruin? What worries me even more is the idea that in this situation, humanity might see the complete loss of one culture or another (which, to me, is worse by far than the extinctions of any animals). Whether the good effects of population decline outweighs the negative effects is something I suppose people will need to consider themselves.
So now we are left with the question: What led to the change of a world worried about overpopulation to a world worried (or relieved) about population decline? And, at the same time, What were the solutions that led to decline? Potts gives the blame (or credit, if you prefer) to the increasing availability of contraceptives. He claims that without the further spread of contraceptives, the fertility rate will not decrease swiftly enough to meet United Nations Population Fund estimates by the year two thousand fifty.9 Interestingly enough, Spain and Italy, which have the lowest fertility rates in Europe, also have majority populations of Roman Catholics, a sect of Christianity that is strongly against any usage of contraceptives.10 So Potts’ thesis that contraceptives are the main force in decreasing worldwide population is questionable. In China, there is the one-child per household policy11, which has undoubtedly cut down on births in that country. Add to that the tradition that Chinese families carry on their name through male children (much the same as many cultures), and you get a lot of families with only one child, and that child is a boy. Thus, the current generation and the next generations of Chinese males will find it very difficult to find a mate. One other factor mentioned by Potts is that richer people tend to want fewer children, for which he gives Bangladesh as an example. Potts says that Bangladesh decreased from a fertility rate of over five to a little above replacement rates in under five years, alongside rapid economic development and the increasing availability of contraceptives. At the same time, however, one can imagine that materialistic philosophies began to take root, and Christian missionaries were given more freedom to evangelize (which has happened in every nations that has ‘westernized’ itself in the past).12 Which particular event (or set of events) caused the decrease in fertility rate is hard to determine. According to Tweeten and Zulauf, a decrease in fertility rate (and thus, a negative population growth) is just one of the things that characterizes a developed nation. Meyer points out that even in developed countries where the government is supporting systems that promote fertility rates (such as Singapore, which has a subsidized dating service), the rates are dropping. Ultimately, the cause of the change from explosive growth to slow decline is probably not contraceptives, but is hard to determine otherwise. China’s one-child policy was definitely a force for that country, but for Europe, America, and developed Asian countries, the decrease in fertility is still, to me, an unanswered question.
In conclusion, overpopulation is not one of the modern world’s problems. The Union of Concerned Scientists was wrong in that, at least. The real issue seems to be negative population growth and the problems it brings with it. Countries with social security will be devastated by the decrease in available labor and the increase in the number of retirees. These governments will face a very real problem unless some major changes are made. On the other hand, population decline will bring some positive effects for the environment, for individuals, and for some economies. It will undoubtedly reduce the output of pollution and the consumption of resources. Land will be freed up so that houses will be cheaper (as mentioned by Nicholson-lord) in general. Some animals that are currently threatened by human encroachment in their environments may possibly return to nominal population levels13. There will be no worries of a food crisis or any sort of famine. Production of agricultural goods might even increase as the population declines. All these things and more good will probably come of the decrease in population. Whether the economic problems discussed earlier will be worth it (for some nations) is not something I can answer.
But what of the policies that caused the change? China’s one-child policy was a factor for that country, without a doubt. The spread of contraceptives is often tied with lowering fertility rates, but is of questionable viability because it in turn raises wanton promiscuity, which in turn raises illegitimacy. Removing the responsibilities attendant with intercourse is simply an unwise decision no matter how you look at it. Perhaps it’s as Tweeten and Zulauf claim, that population decline is simply a sign of development? If that is the reason, there is an uncountable number of causes for the effect of population decline. Among them may very well be contraceptives, certain religions and philosophies, even prosperity might be a cause. I can’t really point out a definitive reason why populations have started to decline, but I suppose that’s not really what’s important. What’s important is that the UCS’ “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” was wrong, and instead of considering solutions to population growth, humanity should now start looking for solutions to a completely opposite concern: population decline.
Notes
1 The Union of Concerned Scientists, from what I can determine from their website, is an organization that’s been around since the seventies, based at MIT. It tends to be slanted toward environmentalism, but the argumentation it uses tends to be well sourced, if not entirely logical (to a conservationist like me, anyway). One of the problems it has, especially with the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” is that it boasts several Nobel laureates among its body, which adds precisely nothing for its credibility, considering the amount of politics involved in the awarding of Nobel Prizes. Though it may be off-topic, it is notable that Zork, a landmark in computer gaming history, was developed by students at MIT, so I tend to like that particular institution.
2 This is undoubtedly an unwise move. In my own valley, while there is certainly a lot of fertile land that has yet to be used for farming, there is even more land that has the qualities most people look for when they want to build a home (a nice view, clean air, etc, etc) in areas that are not so apt for agricultural uses.
3 What Lynas fails to mention is which animals are threatened, and where he gets that information. He doesn’t even provide any evidence that it was humanity that caused those species to become threatened with extinction. Furthermore, the fact that his whole argument is heavily based on evolutionary theory lends very little credibility. Of course, me being a Christian, and creation being the most logical explanation I can find, using evolutionary theory for reasoning purposes would lend little or no credibility to an argument, at least for me anyway.
4 Fertility rate is based on how many children born per woman in a country. So for Sanpete County (where I live), with its average of five to six children per mother, the fertility rate would be about 5.5.
5 All these rates are originally from studies of the United Nations Population Fund, and are mentioned by Tweeten & Zulauf, Potts, Boorse, Nicholson-Lord, and Meyer.
6 According to Potts’ article in Scientific American, this estimate assumes that developed countries will continue to pay for undeveloped and developing countries’ contraceptives. This despite the fact that, logically, contraceptives in general tend to encourage promiscuity. This is in turn results in higher fertility rates. Furthermore, while the ability to perform abortions might result in lower populations (mainly because abortion often kills the mother along with the child, either at the time of surgery, or from complications; especially when you consider that in undeveloped/developing countries, quality surgeons are not exactly in high supply), birth control pills and injections only guarantee that if there is a resultant child it will be defective in some way or another. And it is very seldom that a mother that knows the risks involved in an abortion (which are multiplied by being in a undeveloped/developing area) will have an abortion anyway. (Please make note that this argument is my own reasoning, based on my personal observance of teenagers at a public high school I attended a few years ago, as well as studies and things that pop up in the news every so often and become something like common knowledge).
7 This may actually be, in my humble opinion, a good thing, not only for China, but for the rest of the world. It may end up getting rid of social security forever. If humanity is really lucky, it may end all of the ineffective government entitlement programs. Unfortunately, my experience suggests that even given the obvious failures of those programs as of yet, many politicians are completely oblivious to the idea of getting rid of them. Furthermore, it is probable that they will continue to ignore the problem even after it completely destroys the economy, blaming the economic devastation on something else.
8 Nicholson-Lord especially extols the increasing availability of a home with a view.
9 Potts is an obstetrician by profession so it is expected that he would extol the usage of contraceptives.
10 I know this because I remember reading it somewhere, though I can’t pinpoint exactly where I read it. Should be common knowledge, assuming everyone remembers their high-school history courses.
11 This policy, which you can google if you wish, basically makes it so that every family in China can have one and only one child. If they want more, they have to fill out several papers to get approval, and approval is not given to very many. Being a major violation of human rights, it is a controversial policy that is often discussed on TV, the internet, and in periodicals (which is where I get my information, though I am regrettably unable to pinpoint any specific sources).
12 For example, when Japan started to westernize, the people that came to teach them were Jesuits (again, this should be common knowledge to anyone who attended high school World History).
13 Again, Mark Lynas never did give specific info to relate the decrease in the number of particular species to overpopulation. He didn’t really prove, per se, that it was even human encroachment, but we can probably assume that human encroachment is at least one of the factors.
Works Cited
Borse, Dorothy. “Overpopulation: Ecological & Biblical Principles Concerning Limitation.” Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion. 7.05 (2003): 154-170.
Kendall, Henry. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 29 Oct. 2002. Union of Concerned Scientists. 8 July 2005.
Lynas, Mark. “The Biomass of Human Bodies Now Exceeds by a Hundred Times that of any Large Animal Species that Ever Existed on Land.” New Statesman 23 Feb. 2004: 23-25.
Meyer, Micheal. “Birth Dearth.” Newsweek 27 Sept. 2005. 8 July 2005.
Nicholson-Lord, David. “The Fewer the Better.” New Statesman 8 Nov. 2004: 24-26.
“Overpopulation.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
Potts, Malcom. “The Unmet Need for Family Planning.” Scientific American 282.1 (2000): 88-93. Vocational and Career Coalition. 8 July 2005.
Sowell, Thomas. “The Tragedy of Africa.” Townhall.com Ed. Johnathon Garthwaite et al. 12 July 2005. Townhall.com. 13 July 2005.
Tweeten, Luther and Carl Zulauf. “Feeding the World: the Long-term Outlook.” Futurist Sep. 2002: 54-59.
United Nations Population Fund. July 2005. United Nations Population Fund. 8 July 2005.
Update: Wow that did not copy and paste as well as I thought. Edited for better white spacing and line breaking.
14 July 2005
On The Union of Concerned Scientist Warning to the World
Concerning the Threat of Overpopulation
In November of 1992, one thousand seven hundred scientists affiliated with the Union of Concerned Scientists1 signed the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which was written by Henry Kendall. In this ‘warning’ Kendall says that:
"Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today’s 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition."
How true is this? Is the world really approaching overpopulation? I decided to research the topic and find out, dividing the topic into several basic questions. First, what constitutes overpopulation? Second, is the world facing overpopulation as a problem today? Third, what solutions have been suggested to prevent overpopulation or to at least slow population growth? For those solutions that have already been implemented, what has worked, what has not worked, and why? Lastly, if in actuality population decline is the modern problem (as much of my research has suggested), how did we get there, what problems does it pose, and how do we get back into population growth (if that is needed)? With these questions in mind, I began my research.
What is overpopulation? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, it is “The condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash.” Kendall and the world scientists seem to agree with this definition. But the problem with this definition is that one can almost say they “feel” the world is overpopulated, or a city is overpopulated, because in their eyes it may fit the aforementioned description. Take, for instance, Salt Lake City. If one is used to a small town atmosphere, the city atmosphere can feel so uncomfortable that it lowers one’s quality of life. The crime rate (especially the murder rate) that naturally rises with the population density might be labeled as a type of population crash. And to top it all off, the air pollution is undoubtedly worse than in places outside the city. So if such conditions are natural for any areas with high population densities (or even medium population densities, such as Salt Lake City), when does one say that there is overpopulation? For my own research, I have decided that severe environmental damage, engendering the over-consumption of resources to the point that the surrounding areas have become barren, and severe changes in quality of life for the residents of an area (such that the majority of people are without food, water, and shelter) are required to call it overpopulation. With this clarification, places like Los Angeles (which I have visited) are not overpopulated because people in those cities have a high quality of life (while there are hungry homeless, they are far from being a majority), the pollution is not so bad as to seriously affect the surrounding environment, and crime is not so bad as to kill a noticeable percentage of those cities’ populations. To call a place overpopulated, then, would require: a) severe negative environmental impact; b) people with little to no quality of life, where any food and shelter is scarce, and quality food and shelter is non-existent; and c) a mass die-off from malnutrition and starvation (death from disease has too many extraneous factors for use as a good criterion).
Now that we have a definition of what overpopulation is, and more importantly, what conditions would exist to suggest overpopulation, is the world overpopulated? Do we have enough resources to support our current world population? Well, from what Tweeten and Zulauf, authors of the Futurist study “Feeding the World: the Long-term Outlook,” say, the world is still harvesting resources, most countries have surpluses of these resources stocked up, and there are more than enough resources to support the current population. Tweeten and Zulauf make this clear when they point out that farms in general are yielding far more per acre now than ever before, even to the point that many plots of farmland are being re-zoned as residential or commercial areas.2
While there are certainly places that have few resources now, such as sub-Saharan Africa, it is not as if they’ve run out of resources. Thomas Sowell, in one of his columns for Townhall.com, makes clear that Africa’s problems are bad leadership, bad geographical location, and bad foreign aid policies from other nations rather than just too many people with too few resources. This is made even clearer when Sowell contrasts the centrally-planned governments of some African nations with the free-market economy of the Ivory Coast. Under then-president Felix Houphouet-Boigny’s democratic government, that country evidently prospered. This shows that overpopulation is, if even a factor, not the decisive factor in causing sub-Saharan Africa’s various problems.
As for environmental problems, who’s to say that the problems we have now, or think we have now, are directly related to overpopulation? I’ve heard lots of arguments by environmentalists that things like deforestation and the loss of species to extinction are caused by rapid human expansion. At the same time, there are many people who I’ve heard claim that the Earth can handle anything that humans do to it, even so far as nuclear winter. And there are, of course, lots of people (myself included) who hold opinions that are somewhere in between. So which argument most accurately describes the state of the environment, and the causes for that state? The main question remains whether or not the environment shows signs of devastation due to human overpopulation. Mark Lynas, in an article for the British magazine New Statesman, claims that because of human overpopulation one fifth of bird species, forty percent of mammals and fish, one third of amphibians, and up to one half of all plant species are threatened with extinction.3 He says, in his title even, that “The Biomass of Human Bodies Now Exceeds by a Hundred Times that of any Large Animal Species that Ever Existed on Land.” So there is a lot of people on the planet Earth, and a lot of lower species are facing extinction. While there is evidence that human encroachment might force certain species’ habitats to be changed (leading to possible extinction), that alone doesn’t show overpopulation. I found nothing in Lynas’ argument that gives evidence of environmental damage due to human overpopulation.
Thus, it can be seen that there is not an overpopulation problem today, but what about the future? The United Nations Population Fund’s most recent studies show that the current world fertility rate4 is about two and nine tenths, and steadily decreasing. According to Micheal Meyer, a two and one tenth fertility rate is required for population stability, so it appears that the world population will soon move into decline. The studies indicate that Europe’s native populations are already in decline, with Italy and Spain leading with a rate of one and two tenths. Those studies also show that France and Ireland have the highest averages in Europe, with a fertility rate of one and eight tenths. They find that Germany’s fertility rate, and the average in Europe, is at one and four tenths.5 Another interesting fact illuminated by the United Nations Population Fund studies is that, along with Europe, all the developed nations in SE Asia as well as China are already in a state of native population decline. Furthermore, it seems that America is the only developed nation with a fertility rate above replacement levels, but it is barely so. The United Nations Population Fund goes on to estimate a worldwide fertility rate drop below two and one tenth by the year two thousand fifty. Even the nations in the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa (which currently have rates well above replacement, according to the UNFPA) are expected to have below replacement levels of fertility rates by that time.6
So what, then, are the effects of population decline? According to Meyer and Boorse, those nations whose leaders were misguided enough to start social security programs (or similar policies) will be in for deep economic troubles. Meyer and Boorse say the worst problems will arise in China, which is expected to have the so called ‘4-2-1' situation. That is, four grandparents and two parents dependent on the income of one child. According to Meyer, this problem arises mainly from the population decline (which means less labor available in every generation, leading to less prosperity, leading to less wages), along with bad health policies (which lead to people retiring at a younger age). More importantly, Meyer says, this will force the government to lower whatever benefits are provided by their social security system, or to raise the taxes on the workers, or both.7 The same problem will undoubtedly occur in every country with a social security system or social security-like policies.
But what of the positive effects of population decline? Tweeten and Zulauf suggest that negative population growth (that is, decline) will alleviate any fears of global food crises. All of the sources I’ve read agree that there will be less crowding, greater per capita income, healthier living, and a healthier environment after a population decline.8 Do these outweigh the problems? While it might be good for China if its financial policies force a government collapse (as discussed earlier), recessions and/or depressions rivaling, or even surpassing, that of black Thursday’s are a bleak future to think of. Granted, not every nation will face this (as not all nations have social security or like programs, and there is the possibility that those countries that currently have social security might rid themselves of it, seeing the coming population decline), but for those that will, are the positive effects worth potential economic ruin? What worries me even more is the idea that in this situation, humanity might see the complete loss of one culture or another (which, to me, is worse by far than the extinctions of any animals). Whether the good effects of population decline outweighs the negative effects is something I suppose people will need to consider themselves.
So now we are left with the question: What led to the change of a world worried about overpopulation to a world worried (or relieved) about population decline? And, at the same time, What were the solutions that led to decline? Potts gives the blame (or credit, if you prefer) to the increasing availability of contraceptives. He claims that without the further spread of contraceptives, the fertility rate will not decrease swiftly enough to meet United Nations Population Fund estimates by the year two thousand fifty.9 Interestingly enough, Spain and Italy, which have the lowest fertility rates in Europe, also have majority populations of Roman Catholics, a sect of Christianity that is strongly against any usage of contraceptives.10 So Potts’ thesis that contraceptives are the main force in decreasing worldwide population is questionable. In China, there is the one-child per household policy11, which has undoubtedly cut down on births in that country. Add to that the tradition that Chinese families carry on their name through male children (much the same as many cultures), and you get a lot of families with only one child, and that child is a boy. Thus, the current generation and the next generations of Chinese males will find it very difficult to find a mate. One other factor mentioned by Potts is that richer people tend to want fewer children, for which he gives Bangladesh as an example. Potts says that Bangladesh decreased from a fertility rate of over five to a little above replacement rates in under five years, alongside rapid economic development and the increasing availability of contraceptives. At the same time, however, one can imagine that materialistic philosophies began to take root, and Christian missionaries were given more freedom to evangelize (which has happened in every nations that has ‘westernized’ itself in the past).12 Which particular event (or set of events) caused the decrease in fertility rate is hard to determine. According to Tweeten and Zulauf, a decrease in fertility rate (and thus, a negative population growth) is just one of the things that characterizes a developed nation. Meyer points out that even in developed countries where the government is supporting systems that promote fertility rates (such as Singapore, which has a subsidized dating service), the rates are dropping. Ultimately, the cause of the change from explosive growth to slow decline is probably not contraceptives, but is hard to determine otherwise. China’s one-child policy was definitely a force for that country, but for Europe, America, and developed Asian countries, the decrease in fertility is still, to me, an unanswered question.
In conclusion, overpopulation is not one of the modern world’s problems. The Union of Concerned Scientists was wrong in that, at least. The real issue seems to be negative population growth and the problems it brings with it. Countries with social security will be devastated by the decrease in available labor and the increase in the number of retirees. These governments will face a very real problem unless some major changes are made. On the other hand, population decline will bring some positive effects for the environment, for individuals, and for some economies. It will undoubtedly reduce the output of pollution and the consumption of resources. Land will be freed up so that houses will be cheaper (as mentioned by Nicholson-lord) in general. Some animals that are currently threatened by human encroachment in their environments may possibly return to nominal population levels13. There will be no worries of a food crisis or any sort of famine. Production of agricultural goods might even increase as the population declines. All these things and more good will probably come of the decrease in population. Whether the economic problems discussed earlier will be worth it (for some nations) is not something I can answer.
But what of the policies that caused the change? China’s one-child policy was a factor for that country, without a doubt. The spread of contraceptives is often tied with lowering fertility rates, but is of questionable viability because it in turn raises wanton promiscuity, which in turn raises illegitimacy. Removing the responsibilities attendant with intercourse is simply an unwise decision no matter how you look at it. Perhaps it’s as Tweeten and Zulauf claim, that population decline is simply a sign of development? If that is the reason, there is an uncountable number of causes for the effect of population decline. Among them may very well be contraceptives, certain religions and philosophies, even prosperity might be a cause. I can’t really point out a definitive reason why populations have started to decline, but I suppose that’s not really what’s important. What’s important is that the UCS’ “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” was wrong, and instead of considering solutions to population growth, humanity should now start looking for solutions to a completely opposite concern: population decline.
Notes
1 The Union of Concerned Scientists, from what I can determine from their website, is an organization that’s been around since the seventies, based at MIT. It tends to be slanted toward environmentalism, but the argumentation it uses tends to be well sourced, if not entirely logical (to a conservationist like me, anyway). One of the problems it has, especially with the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” is that it boasts several Nobel laureates among its body, which adds precisely nothing for its credibility, considering the amount of politics involved in the awarding of Nobel Prizes. Though it may be off-topic, it is notable that Zork, a landmark in computer gaming history, was developed by students at MIT, so I tend to like that particular institution.
2 This is undoubtedly an unwise move. In my own valley, while there is certainly a lot of fertile land that has yet to be used for farming, there is even more land that has the qualities most people look for when they want to build a home (a nice view, clean air, etc, etc) in areas that are not so apt for agricultural uses.
3 What Lynas fails to mention is which animals are threatened, and where he gets that information. He doesn’t even provide any evidence that it was humanity that caused those species to become threatened with extinction. Furthermore, the fact that his whole argument is heavily based on evolutionary theory lends very little credibility. Of course, me being a Christian, and creation being the most logical explanation I can find, using evolutionary theory for reasoning purposes would lend little or no credibility to an argument, at least for me anyway.
4 Fertility rate is based on how many children born per woman in a country. So for Sanpete County (where I live), with its average of five to six children per mother, the fertility rate would be about 5.5.
5 All these rates are originally from studies of the United Nations Population Fund, and are mentioned by Tweeten & Zulauf, Potts, Boorse, Nicholson-Lord, and Meyer.
6 According to Potts’ article in Scientific American, this estimate assumes that developed countries will continue to pay for undeveloped and developing countries’ contraceptives. This despite the fact that, logically, contraceptives in general tend to encourage promiscuity. This is in turn results in higher fertility rates. Furthermore, while the ability to perform abortions might result in lower populations (mainly because abortion often kills the mother along with the child, either at the time of surgery, or from complications; especially when you consider that in undeveloped/developing countries, quality surgeons are not exactly in high supply), birth control pills and injections only guarantee that if there is a resultant child it will be defective in some way or another. And it is very seldom that a mother that knows the risks involved in an abortion (which are multiplied by being in a undeveloped/developing area) will have an abortion anyway. (Please make note that this argument is my own reasoning, based on my personal observance of teenagers at a public high school I attended a few years ago, as well as studies and things that pop up in the news every so often and become something like common knowledge).
7 This may actually be, in my humble opinion, a good thing, not only for China, but for the rest of the world. It may end up getting rid of social security forever. If humanity is really lucky, it may end all of the ineffective government entitlement programs. Unfortunately, my experience suggests that even given the obvious failures of those programs as of yet, many politicians are completely oblivious to the idea of getting rid of them. Furthermore, it is probable that they will continue to ignore the problem even after it completely destroys the economy, blaming the economic devastation on something else.
8 Nicholson-Lord especially extols the increasing availability of a home with a view.
9 Potts is an obstetrician by profession so it is expected that he would extol the usage of contraceptives.
10 I know this because I remember reading it somewhere, though I can’t pinpoint exactly where I read it. Should be common knowledge, assuming everyone remembers their high-school history courses.
11 This policy, which you can google if you wish, basically makes it so that every family in China can have one and only one child. If they want more, they have to fill out several papers to get approval, and approval is not given to very many. Being a major violation of human rights, it is a controversial policy that is often discussed on TV, the internet, and in periodicals (which is where I get my information, though I am regrettably unable to pinpoint any specific sources).
12 For example, when Japan started to westernize, the people that came to teach them were Jesuits (again, this should be common knowledge to anyone who attended high school World History).
13 Again, Mark Lynas never did give specific info to relate the decrease in the number of particular species to overpopulation. He didn’t really prove, per se, that it was even human encroachment, but we can probably assume that human encroachment is at least one of the factors.
Works Cited
Borse, Dorothy. “Overpopulation: Ecological & Biblical Principles Concerning Limitation.” Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion. 7.05 (2003): 154-170.
Kendall, Henry. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 29 Oct. 2002. Union of Concerned Scientists. 8 July 2005
Lynas, Mark. “The Biomass of Human Bodies Now Exceeds by a Hundred Times that of any Large Animal Species that Ever Existed on Land.” New Statesman 23 Feb. 2004: 23-25.
Meyer, Micheal. “Birth Dearth.” Newsweek 27 Sept. 2005. 8 July 2005
Nicholson-Lord, David. “The Fewer the Better.” New Statesman 8 Nov. 2004: 24-26.
“Overpopulation.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
Potts, Malcom. “The Unmet Need for Family Planning.” Scientific American 282.1 (2000): 88-93. Vocational and Career Coalition. 8 July 2005
Sowell, Thomas. “The Tragedy of Africa.” Townhall.com Ed. Johnathon Garthwaite et al. 12 July 2005. Townhall.com. 13 July 2005
Tweeten, Luther and Carl Zulauf. “Feeding the World: the Long-term Outlook.” Futurist Sep. 2002: 54-59.
United Nations Population Fund. July 2005. United Nations Population Fund. 8 July 2005
Update: Wow that did not copy and paste as well as I thought. Edited for better white spacing and line breaking.
Did you know...
...about a guy named Koizumi Junichiro? Just started reading a ... mahjong manga based on Koizumi (who was the Japanese prime minister ). Interesting stuff, and an interesting look at this particular mangaka's viewpoint on US Presidents George HW Bush and George W Bush (in that W is shown as something of a Momma's boy, where HW is shown as being pretty strong-willed, a complete reverse of the usual characterizations). I wonder if most Japanese look at W like that?
My roommate, who is a Japanese national, holds a pretty negative view of extensive use of American military force of late, noting something that I didn't even think about: Japan's funding the American military. Not solely, of course, but I didn't realize that there are still funds going from Japanese taxpayers to American forces. I'd be pretty interested in finding out more about how that works, exactly, but as it is it seems rather unethical. I mean, I know American forces provide a certain amount of security and protection by staying in the area (especially what with recent off-shore oil issues between Japan, China and Korea) but us charging for it does seem a little...off.
Anyways, back to Koizumi, from the sounds of it he's a world leader in the same league as Reagan and Thatcher, and it's saddenning that his faction of the LDP lost power within a few years after he passed leadership on, and the LDP as a whole has now lost power to the Democratic Party in Japan. And, while I need to do more reading to be sure, it sounds like the leadership of the Democratic Party of Japan are essentially the descendants of the zaibatsu, the nobility-turned-'businessmen' that became dominant and powerful in Japan much like the Rockefeller-type families and their "Business Trusts" in the late 1800s and early 1900s here in the US. Which is to say, the DPJ seems like a pretty corrupt group.
My roommate, who is a Japanese national, holds a pretty negative view of extensive use of American military force of late, noting something that I didn't even think about: Japan's funding the American military. Not solely, of course, but I didn't realize that there are still funds going from Japanese taxpayers to American forces. I'd be pretty interested in finding out more about how that works, exactly, but as it is it seems rather unethical. I mean, I know American forces provide a certain amount of security and protection by staying in the area (especially what with recent off-shore oil issues between Japan, China and Korea) but us charging for it does seem a little...off.
Anyways, back to Koizumi, from the sounds of it he's a world leader in the same league as Reagan and Thatcher, and it's saddenning that his faction of the LDP lost power within a few years after he passed leadership on, and the LDP as a whole has now lost power to the Democratic Party in Japan. And, while I need to do more reading to be sure, it sounds like the leadership of the Democratic Party of Japan are essentially the descendants of the zaibatsu, the nobility-turned-'businessmen' that became dominant and powerful in Japan much like the Rockefeller-type families and their "Business Trusts" in the late 1800s and early 1900s here in the US. Which is to say, the DPJ seems like a pretty corrupt group.
A Beginning ~ Random Meanderings
Hello world.
So, just thought, all the cool kids are writing blogs these days, I should too. I'm thinking I'll write about computer science stuff here, my own personal philosophy, political leanings, and my own game reviews (or at least, partial reviews in that I don't always play a game through to the end).
I'm also going to post some of my essays I think are noteworthy up here for your entertainment, maybe expanding on some of the ideas more later on. I'm also gonna toss up some example programs I write for my own reference (and anyone else who finds them interesting).
So, just thought, all the cool kids are writing blogs these days, I should too. I'm thinking I'll write about computer science stuff here, my own personal philosophy, political leanings, and my own game reviews (or at least, partial reviews in that I don't always play a game through to the end).
I'm also going to post some of my essays I think are noteworthy up here for your entertainment, maybe expanding on some of the ideas more later on. I'm also gonna toss up some example programs I write for my own reference (and anyone else who finds them interesting).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
