As was the case for the first half of this year and much of the previous one, my reading pace has been slowed down by my tendency to use my commuting time to check my email on my phone and work on various projects on my laptop rather than to do my reading. However, I still have managed to get some reading in. The books described below are ones that I've finished in the latter half of the year, and there are a few others that I should manage to finish soon.
Voices and Powers by Ursula K. LeGuin
These two novels are sequels to LeGuin’s Gifts and the second and third in her Annals of the Western Shore series. Each novel has a different main protagonist, though Orrec and Gry from Gifts play a major role in Voices, and the two of them, together with Memer, the protagonist of Voices, appear briefly at the end of Powers. In terms of dramatic setting, Voices is probably the most “typical” of the three books, as Memer is an adolescent girl living in a city occupied by a hostile army, and she comes to play a role in the effort by the people of the city to throw off the yoke of their oppressors. But as might be expected of LeGuin’s thoughtful writing, Memer learns that things are not completely black and white and that violence is not always the best way to accomplish things. Powers tells the tale of Gavir, a young man who grows up as a slave in a city-state somewhat reminiscent of ancient Greece or Rome that is at almost constant war with its neighbors (though which ones varies due to constantly shifting alliances). Though at first glance, the family that Gavir belongs to treats their slaves very well, almost like members of the family, we soon learn that there is a dark side even to the best master-slave relationships. This novel has less conventional action than Voices, being more of a tale of personal discovery, but it has its share of drama and terrible tragedy.
All three books share to some extent the central theme of the power of books and the written word, as the protagonists are all readers living among people who mostly read less well than them, or not at all, and their reading ability plays an important role in the story, particularly in Voices and Powers. Reading is at the center of Memer and Gavir’s lives and their interactions with both the literate and the illiterate people around them. As for these other characters, many of them are also quite complex and well-developed. Interestingly, the most one-dimensional characters in any of the three Western Shore novels are the chief villains. Even more complex than most of the characters are the pictures of the societies, which, as in all of LeGuin’s novels, are drawn in vivid detail. Overall, both these books are up to LeGuin’s usual high standards and are well worth reading.
Freedom in Exile by the Dalai Lama
The autobiography of the man who was born Lhamo Dondrub but is now better known as Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is very interesting reading. While I knew the basic outline of his life and, having read one of his books (Beyond Religion) and heard a few of his speeches, I knew something about his views on many issues, it was quite fascinating to learn the details. Of course anyone who knows even a little about his life knows that the Chinese claims that he is an inveterate anti-Communist and anti-Chinese radical are complete nonsense, but it was interesting to learn the details of his attempts to reach some sort of accommodation with the Chinese Communists, including his meetings with Mao Zedong and other leaders, and of his opinions of various political and economic systems – as he also says in his other book, he considers himself half a Marxist in terms of ensuring that wealth is distributed fairly, though he found that Communism as practiced in China fell far short of its lofty ideals. I only recall one occasion in the book where he slips into negative (though understandable) stereotyping of Chinese people in general; for the most part he bends over backwards to make the point that despite the terrible way the Chinese government has treated his people, he bears no ill will toward the Chinese. Though of course he regards Tibet as a country that was historically independent of China, which it in fact was, he reiterates a willingness to compromise with China on the issue of Tibet’s status, even though justly he could (and some might say should) insist on full independence.
The Dalai Lama’s stories of his childhood are quite fascinating. He grew up mostly secluded from the general populace, though he did occasionally slip out and from an early age showed a keen interest in ordinary people and their lives. While it must have been quite strange to be treated as almost a living god, it seemingly didn’t turn his head, and once his situation was transformed by first the Chinese invasion and eventually exile, he was quick to eliminate many of the formalities that had grown up around his positions. Possessing a lively curiosity and a rational mind, he unsurprisingly developed an interest in technology and science. He isn’t entirely free from unscientific beliefs, however; he expresses some faith in the powers of soothsayers, though he also makes it clear that he knows not everyone shares his belief – indeed, his own expressions of belief have a bit of ambivalence about them. Certainly for the leader of a religion who grew up surrounded by a considerable amount of what I would frankly regard as superstition, he has a much more logical and scientific mind than would be expected; indeed more so than most Westerners. While one might learn as much or more about the Dalai Lama’s philosophical views from other books he’s written, this autobiography is an excellent way to learn about his own take on his very eventful life and about the recent history of Tibet.
MaddAddam by Margaret Atwood
MaddAddam is the third and final book in Margaret Atwood’s trilogy about a dystopian near future, continuing the story that started in Oryx and Crake and continued in The Year of the Flood. Like those two novels, MaddAddam is told partly in the post-apocalyptic present and partly in flashbacks to the time before the plague that wiped out most of humanity, causing the collapse of civilization. In this novel, the focus is on Toby, who also was one of the two main protagonists of The Year of the Flood, and Zeb, who also played a major role in the second novel. The parts of the novel set in the present are told from Toby’s viewpoint, and they are interspersed with Zeb’s account to Toby of his life up to the time they met as members of the group called God’s Gardeners, founded by Adam, Zeb’s brother (though there is some question as to their precise genetic relationship). Jimmy and Ren, the main protagonist of Oryx and Crake and the second main protagonist of The Year of the Flood, also appear, though Ren’s role is relatively minor.
All in all, MaddAddam meets the standards set by the previous two novels, and if anything may be slightly stronger than The Year of the Flood. There is at least one apparent minor inconsistency between this book and the previous one regarding the fate of Adam, presumably because Atwood simply changed her mind, but this is insignificant and could perhaps be explained away. The only bit I found slightly disappointing was the way the fate of the three characters who disappeared on an expedition at the very end of the novel was handled. Even if the group believed that the explanation of what had happened to them was accurate, you’d think they’d send another group out to check, just in case there were (perhaps injured) survivors on either side. It seemed a bit odd for them to just make an assumption and leave it at that. However, despite this flaw, the book is otherwise a good conclusion to an excellent trilogy of novels, one that I’d recommend to readers of any sort.
Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach
Ecotopia, first published in 1975, is a very interesting book that in some ways is more of a manifesto for an ideal society than a standard novel. The basic premise is that part of the United States, specifically northern California, Oregon and Washington, has broken away and formed the nation of Ecotopia. The new country is founded on radical, idealistic principles with respect to ecology, politics, economics and indeed virtually every element of society. A journalist from the United States visits Ecotopia several decades after its independence to do a series of investigative reports on the country, which has been largely closed to Americans since it was established.
Ecotopia, as the name implies, embodies ecological principles under which humans’ use of nature is kept in careful balance. Highly artificial materials (such as most plastics) and exploitative materials such as metals and fossil fuels are dispensed with and replaced by natural materials. While animals are still eaten, they are hunted with simple weapons like bows and arrows, and care is taken to avoid over-hunting. Wood is used for a lot of things, including construction, but forests are planted to replace all wood used.
The society of Ecotopia is likewise very different from that of the US. Women and men are completely equal; indeed, women were the main driving force behind the country’s establishment. Social relations have been completely transformed, including everything from sexual relations to the raising of children. Government is highly decentralized, and large cities have been broken up into more manageable sizes. People are guaranteed basic necessities, and work to get luxuries. Schools involve a lot of independent, hands-on work by the students, including spending time exploring nature. Even relationships are quite different, with American prudishness about sex largely dispensed with, though people still form strong pair bonds (it’s even mentioned that there is no stigma about same sex relationships).
What plot there is in Ecotopia has to do with how the American journalist, William Weston, grows in his understanding of Ecotopian society and particularly how he gets involved in a relationship with an Ecotopian woman who aids him in this process. But the plot is not really the point here. The main purpose of the book is to present a comprehensive picture of a possible society founded on principles of environmental sustainability and social and economic equality and stability. While some aspects of the book date it somewhat – for example, while fossil fuels are rejected by the Ecotopians, this is because of their polluting and unsustainable qualities, not because of climate change, which is not even mentioned (the concept was known long before the book was published but had not really seeped into the public consciousness) – it is also remarkable prescient in some ways, including some of the products the Ecotopians make and some of the ways they obtain energy. Some of the changes in the way people behave strike me as a bit dubious, not so much because they would be undesirable, but because, as author Iain Banks said with regard to his futuristic society the Culture, they seem a little difficult to obtain without some sort of genetic engineering to fundamentally change some of the negative aspects of human nature. But with a few exceptions most aspects of Ecotopia do seem like they’d be a vast improvement over modern, capitalistic society. In general, the book is a thought-provoking look at some ways society could be made more sustainable and equitable, and could provide the starting point for some interesting debates.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
What I've Been Reading: July 2015 to November 2015
Labels:
Books
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Paris Agreement on Climate Change
In my last post, I talked about the climate conference in Paris. Now the summit is over and an agreement was reached by the attending countries (regrettably not including Taiwan, thanks of course to China, which acts as if it would rather see human civilization collapse due to runaway climate change than recognize Taiwan as an independent nation) to limit the global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius, with a goal of holding the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees. This is in many ways an impressive, landmark agreement, as it is the first time that almost all the world’s nations have committed to fighting climate change and set specific goals to mitigate its effects. For this reason, the agreement is being widely celebrated, not only by the leaders who signed it but by many environmental groups and non-governmental organizations. However, there has been some criticism of the agreement as falling short of the truly revolutionary transformation that is needed and for lacking in specific binding steps that countries must take within specific time frames. While I haven’t read the agreement or even seen a detailed summary of it, from what I’ve heard, there is merit to both the positive and negative views of it.
It is certainly fair to say that the agreement is about as good as or even better than could have been realistically expected, considering factors such as political inertia, diversity of interests, and outright obstruction from some parties both inside and outside the negotiations. Past climate conferences have not produced anything nearly as far reaching as this agreement, and the fact that a goal of limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees was included was a pleasant surprise, as the conventional wisdom before the summit was that a 2 degree limit was the best that was likely to be agreed to. As I understand it, the agreement also talks of a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, a big improvement over the vague declarations of the past. It seems that to a point at least pressure from NGOs, civil society, and the nations that will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, particularly the small island nations whose very existence is in danger, was able to push the negotiators in the right direction.
On the other hand, those who say the agreement falls short have a point as well. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1 degree Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Even if we stopped all production of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane immediately, temperatures would still continue to rise for some time afterwards, as the gases already produced would remain in the atmosphere (though methane persists for less long, leading some to point out that stopping methane production – including putting a stop to fracking – would have more immediate benefits as far as limiting temperature increases). Scientists have stated that in order to keep temperature increases to a manageable level, global fossil fuel use needs to have peaked no later than 2020, only five years from now. Given this situation, it is fair to question whether an agreement that doesn’t actually require countries to take immediate action will be able to meet its stated goals. Countries are required to report on their progress every five years, but as far as I am aware, there are no sanctions or penalties for failure to make progress. In other words, while the stated goals may meet expectations, there is no guarantee that they will actually be met. Also, while there is general talk of lower net carbon emissions to zero, there is apparently no specific mention of one necessary step to reach that goal, namely eliminating or at least heavily reducing the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the aid being offered to developing countries by developed ones falls short of what they are likely to really need.
It should be noted that one reason for the lack of binding measures and sufficient funding for developing nations is the US Republican Party. US Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted that the main reason the US negotiators didn’t want specific language of this sort was that it would mean that US Congress – dominated by climate changing denying Republicans – would have to review the agreement. So while Kerry and US President Barack Obama aren’t to blame for the agreement’s shortfalls (at least no more than most of the other similarly overcautious leaders), the Republicans and their supporters, along with the fossil fuel industry and certain oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, are largely responsible for the agreement not being all it could have been. Though to some extent it is not surprising that those who have a vested interest in today’s fossil fuel industry would be reluctant to accept the need to change, it is still extremely irresponsible and selfish, and in some instances possibly even criminal, such as in the case of Exxon’s funding of climate change denialism despite having been warned by its own scientists of the threat of climate change as early as the 1970s and 1980s. As for those who are actually delusional enough to not accept that there is a problem, some may eventually come around, but in any case anyone in leadership positions who is either unable or unwilling to accept the science should definitely be voted out or replaced so they can’t continue to obstruct efforts to make change.
Despite the major caveats discussed above, the agreement should be viewed as an important step in the right direction. While it could be a lot better, it is a global acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and provides a framework for further progress. What’s important now is that we all work with the many activist groups focused on this issue to put pressure on our governments to not only fulfill the commitments they made in this agreement but also accelerate their progress toward a clean energy future while we all work to change our societies to make them more sustainable. If we are to avoid potentially disastrous consequences, we have to immediately start building on the limited progress that the Paris Agreement represents.
It is certainly fair to say that the agreement is about as good as or even better than could have been realistically expected, considering factors such as political inertia, diversity of interests, and outright obstruction from some parties both inside and outside the negotiations. Past climate conferences have not produced anything nearly as far reaching as this agreement, and the fact that a goal of limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees was included was a pleasant surprise, as the conventional wisdom before the summit was that a 2 degree limit was the best that was likely to be agreed to. As I understand it, the agreement also talks of a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, a big improvement over the vague declarations of the past. It seems that to a point at least pressure from NGOs, civil society, and the nations that will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, particularly the small island nations whose very existence is in danger, was able to push the negotiators in the right direction.
On the other hand, those who say the agreement falls short have a point as well. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1 degree Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Even if we stopped all production of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane immediately, temperatures would still continue to rise for some time afterwards, as the gases already produced would remain in the atmosphere (though methane persists for less long, leading some to point out that stopping methane production – including putting a stop to fracking – would have more immediate benefits as far as limiting temperature increases). Scientists have stated that in order to keep temperature increases to a manageable level, global fossil fuel use needs to have peaked no later than 2020, only five years from now. Given this situation, it is fair to question whether an agreement that doesn’t actually require countries to take immediate action will be able to meet its stated goals. Countries are required to report on their progress every five years, but as far as I am aware, there are no sanctions or penalties for failure to make progress. In other words, while the stated goals may meet expectations, there is no guarantee that they will actually be met. Also, while there is general talk of lower net carbon emissions to zero, there is apparently no specific mention of one necessary step to reach that goal, namely eliminating or at least heavily reducing the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the aid being offered to developing countries by developed ones falls short of what they are likely to really need.
It should be noted that one reason for the lack of binding measures and sufficient funding for developing nations is the US Republican Party. US Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted that the main reason the US negotiators didn’t want specific language of this sort was that it would mean that US Congress – dominated by climate changing denying Republicans – would have to review the agreement. So while Kerry and US President Barack Obama aren’t to blame for the agreement’s shortfalls (at least no more than most of the other similarly overcautious leaders), the Republicans and their supporters, along with the fossil fuel industry and certain oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, are largely responsible for the agreement not being all it could have been. Though to some extent it is not surprising that those who have a vested interest in today’s fossil fuel industry would be reluctant to accept the need to change, it is still extremely irresponsible and selfish, and in some instances possibly even criminal, such as in the case of Exxon’s funding of climate change denialism despite having been warned by its own scientists of the threat of climate change as early as the 1970s and 1980s. As for those who are actually delusional enough to not accept that there is a problem, some may eventually come around, but in any case anyone in leadership positions who is either unable or unwilling to accept the science should definitely be voted out or replaced so they can’t continue to obstruct efforts to make change.
Despite the major caveats discussed above, the agreement should be viewed as an important step in the right direction. While it could be a lot better, it is a global acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and provides a framework for further progress. What’s important now is that we all work with the many activist groups focused on this issue to put pressure on our governments to not only fulfill the commitments they made in this agreement but also accelerate their progress toward a clean energy future while we all work to change our societies to make them more sustainable. If we are to avoid potentially disastrous consequences, we have to immediately start building on the limited progress that the Paris Agreement represents.
Labels:
Environment and Climate Change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)