A few good articles

Since it's the end of the month and I've only managed to post two entries so far this month, I'll cheat a little again and provide links to a couple of good articles I've read recently.

Here's a good opinion piece from the LA Times on the absurdity of the right-wing assertion that if anyone should pay more taxes, it's not the rich but the "undeserving poor". The Daily Show also covered this issue last month (see both part 1 and part 2) from a slightly different angle (more humorous, though fewer hard numbers).

On another topic, a good overview of the history of the global warming issue and a discussion of the bizarre propensity of a large segment of the American public to deny the evidence can be found here.

Taiwan News: F-16s, the UN and the 2012 Presidential Election

Taiwan has been in the international news lately with the report that the Obama administration has decided not to sell advanced F-16s to the country, but has instead offered to help upgrade the fighters they have. I don’t have the expertise to be sure whether the administration’s claim that an upgrade of existing fighters will be as good a deal as selling new aircraft (the basis for this claim being apparently that the upgrade would cover a far larger number of aircraft, would make them almost as good as the new aircraft would be, and would be cheaper), but if the administration has made this decision out of a fear of China’s reaction, then it is still a black mark on their record (of course other countries refuse to even do this much for Taiwan, also for fear of Chinese displeasure, but that doesn’t really excuse the US, especially since it is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to assist Taiwan). It is possible that there may be legitimate reasons for a reluctance to sell new F-16, such as a fear that Chinese spies would get easier access to US technology as asserted in this article (of course the Taiwan government issued a rebuttal, but that doesn’t prove there isn’t a problem). However, I suspect that China’s touchiness about any threat to their imperialist ambitions toward Taiwan did enter into US calculations, indicating that on this issue Obama looks no better than his predecessors (though in other areas he’s been looking better lately; the little I’ve seen of his deficit plan seems pretty good, especially the so-called “Buffett Rule”, but that’s a topic for another day).

Another big international news story on the surface has nothing to do with Taiwan, but in fact is indicative of a serious lack of principle in the international community. I refer here to the Palestinian plan to seek UN recognition of Palestinian statehood. I haven’t really come down on one side or the other as far as the merits of the Palestinian move. I can understand Palestinian frustration with Israeli intransigence on the settlement issue, and as a people they certainly have some legitimate aspirations that deserve recognition. On the other hand, Israel also has legitimate concerns about security and the stability of a Palestinian state, and I’m not sure that this is the right time for the Palestinians to take this step. But most reports agree that if they take their case to the General Assembly, they’ll have a good chance of winning. My problem with that is the apparent fact that many nations are apparently willing to vote in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state that, regardless of what should be the case, is not currently a truly independent country (its borders are controlled by Israel, which also has a presence throughout much of the West Bank, and it is split between the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza), and yet the vast majority of those same countries will not vote for statehood for Taiwan, which is a fully independent state and has been such for decades. This shows a disgraceful hypocrisy on the part of all those countries, or a craven fear of China, or both.

In Taiwan itself, the media is focusing more and more on the upcoming presidential election, which will take place next January. While I haven’t been reading local news as closely as I should (one problem with getting my news mainly from international websites such as Google and Yahoo and the sources they link to, rather than a local paper), I have seen articles about DPP leader Tsai Ing-wen’s outline of the general principles she would govern under, and broadly speaking, they certainly sound like an improvement over the current administration of the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou. I particularly like her emphasis on developing a green economy and protecting the environment, as well as a more cautious approach to China. Of course talk is cheap, particularly in politics, and there’s no proof she would follow through on all of these rather vague positions. But she is almost certain to be at least a little better on both the environment and China relations than Ma, whose administration has a poor environmental record and seems intent on rushing into the claws of the Chinese. She will also no doubt be better than the previous DPP president, who was erratic and even more of a narcissist than the average politician, aside from possibly being guilty of corruption (and while the KMT legal attack on him and his family after he left office smacked of a political vendetta, particularly in the disproportionate punishment initially handed down, I suspect he was guilty of at least some of the charges). So at this point I am definitely supporting Tsai Ing-wen for president of Taiwan.

What I've Been Reading -- June 2011 to August 2011, Part 2

Here is the second half of my commentary on books I've read recently. This post is mainly concerned with a trilogy about climate change by Kim Stanley Robinson and a collection of quotes from Bertrand Russell. At the end of it, I have included quite a few quotes from Russell, making this an exceptionally long blog post. But the quotes are all quite good, and those who don't have the patience to read them all at once can always read a few at a time.


Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting by Kim Stanley Robinson

The novels that have occupied the largest share of my commuting time in the past few months have been Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting, the three parts of a trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. They are set in the first decade or so of the twentieth century, at a time when climate change is hitting several tipping points (the stalling of the Gulf Stream being the first), causing dramatic changes in the weather. The chief characters are scientists and people closely connected with them, with the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., being the setting for much of the story.

The central characters are Anna Quibbler, a scientist at NSF; her husband Charile Quibbler, a staffer for a progressive Democratic senator from California named Phil Chase; and Anna’s colleague Frank Vanderwal (who is on leave from UC-San Diego), plus numerous supporting characters with various connections to these three. One of the more interesting groups of supporting characters is the Khembalis, ethnic Tibetans from the fictional island nation of Khembalung, located in the ocean near the Ganges delta. They first appear at the beginning of Forty Signs of Rain, having come to set up an embassy in the NSF building. The chief Khembalis were originally refugees from Tibet itself, several of them having been imprisoned by the Chinese. At the time the novel begins, their island home is threatened by the rising sea level caused by climate change. Their linking of Buddhist ideas with science plays an important role in the novel, having a particularly profound effect on Frank Vanderwal, who becomes the main focus of much of the story, particularly in Fifty Degrees Below. The Dalai Lama even makes an appearance, giving a speech in Washington, D.C.

I have read a number of Robinson’s books, but the work this most reminds me of is his Mars trilogy. Like those books, these three are set in the near future (though considerably nearer in this case). Both trilogies are bursting with ideas and expository passages on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from biochemistry, geology, sociology, and psychology to economics, religion, and politics. There is a lot of hard science, and in both trilogies Robinson reveals a fondness for massive engineering projects on a scale that affects the entire planet (Mars in one trilogy and Earth in the other), but he also displays a keen interest in outdoor physical activities (here including rock climbing and kayaking, among others) and alternative lifestyles (the most prominent here being freeganism). Much of this is presented in an impressive amount of detail. While he may not get everything right (for many of the topics he covers I’m not well-versed enough in them to say, but I know for sure that one of his historical analogies in the Martian trilogy involved a few anachronisms), the breadth of knowledge displayed is considerable, and it makes reading his books educational as well as entertaining.

Being set on Earth in the near future, in this trilogy politics of the sort most people are familiar naturally play a much greater role (though there is plenty of politics in the Mars trilogy, most of it is Martian politics, relating to the creation of a new society). With his keen interest in social justice, the environment and ecological sustainability, it should be obvious which side of the American political divide he comes in on. In addition to presenting a vast array of ideas for dealing with climate change and other scientific problems, in these novels he points out a lot of the inequities in our current society and suggests some radical solutions to them (there are also asides about all sorts of things – when Frank is thinking about the problem of suitable clothing for freezing weather he concludes that jeans are, as he puts it, “the SUVs of pants” – too hot and heavy in the summer and poor insulators in the winter). Again, I’m not certain that all of his ideas, whether scientific, political or economic, could really work the way he describes them, but many of them would be worth a closer look in the real world – if there was ever a leader or a government with the nerve to try them.

This relates to another interesting aspect of the trilogy. These books were published between 2004 and 2007. Not to give away too much, but in the course of the story the progressive senator Phil Chase, impelled in part by the environmental disasters overtaking the US and the world, decides to run for president with an ambitious program for dealing with the problem and for changing things in the society, though he faces strong conservative opposition. In reading the parts of the novel relating to Chase and his efforts, I couldn’t help but compare him to Barack Obama. The obvious difference between them is of course that Obama has proved much less ambitious, settling for incremental rather than radical change. Of course in terms of climate change, there haven’t yet been weather events quite as dramatic as in the books, so Obama wouldn’t have had much chance of winning enough support to do nearly as much in that area. But nevertheless, a comparison of the fictional Chase and Obama could serve as the basis for an entire essay on whether Obama has been not shown enough ambition in bringing real change. I should note, however, that despite his obvious cynicism about some elements of the political and business class, Robinson is in some ways perhaps overly optimistic about the possibility of overcoming the forces opposing change.

If there is a weakness to these books from the average reader’s point of view (other than one or two minor inconsistencies that don’t affect the story that much), it is the lack of the dramatic plot that most people expect. There are a lot of dramatic events, and there is even a plot thread involving a rogue intelligence agency that resembles a conventional thriller, but there isn’t an overarching plot in the standard sense. This is similar to varying degrees with Robinson’s other books (The Years of Rice and Salt is an alternative history spanning centuries, and the Mars trilogy tells of the settlement and terraforming of Mars over close to two centuries). But as these books follow the lives of scientists rather than explorers or warriors, there is even less drama than in those books (the Mars books, for instance, feature two Martian revolutions). In a way they are more like real life, albeit set in dramatic times. So for readers who need a thoroughly gripping plot to keep their attention, these books may not be suitable. But for anyone interested in interesting ideas on the topics mentioned, and particularly in the issue of climate change, they are highly recommended (indeed, as some reviewers stated, they should be required reading for policy makers in Washington, D.C.).


Orcs: Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder and Warriors of the Tempest by Stan Nicholls

Orcs is an omnibus edition of three fantasy novels by Stan Nicholls originally published as Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder and Warriors of the Tempest, plus a prequel short story. The novels take an unorthodox approach to genre fantasy, with a clever opening in which a band of warriors is leading an assault on a settlement of another type of creatures, and it is not until the end of the first chapter that the nature of both the attackers and the defenders is revealed. It’s a little too bad that the surprise is undercut by the knowledge that anyone who has read the blurb on the back, or this commentary, or even just the title of the omnibus edition will have. The attackers (except for one) are of course orcs, and the defenders are humans. Even though the surprise is spoiled, though, the idea of making orcs the protagonists of a fantasy novel is original, and in many ways Nicholls succeeds better than R.A. Salvatore with his Dark Elf books, in part because his portrayal of the characters of the leading orcs is more believable.

The books center on an orc warband called the Wolverines, led by their captain Stryke, sergeants Jup (a dwarf and the only non-orc) and Haskeer, and corporals Coilla (the only female) and Alfray. The world they inhabit has an incredible variety of fantasy races (a explanation for this is eventually given), most of them with familiar names but not always familiar appearances or characteristics, and many only appearing in one or two scenes. The continent they inhabit has lately suffered an influx of humans, who have damaged the environment and thereby caused the land’s magic to drain away, further resulting in changes to the climate. Originally in the service of a tyrannical part-human ruler, the Wolverines end up going rogue and going on a mission to retrieve a group of powerful artifacts. In the process, they have to fight a large variety of opponents, including their former mistress and a religious leader who is modeled on the worst sort of heretic-burning, racist Puritan.

Basically this book is straightforward genre fantasy. It doesn’t compare with Guy Kay’s novels, for instance, in terms of writing or depth and there are a number of events that stretch the reader’s credulity. But it is reasonably entertaining and action-packed, and as I said the use of orcs of protagonists alone sets it apart from other novels in this genre. While I wouldn’t suggest that anyone go out of their way to get a copy, if you happen to run across one and want a little light reading, there are worse choices you could make.


Bertrand Russell’s Best

Bertrand Russell’s Best is a collection of quotes from the published works and speeches of Bertrand Russell, selected by Robert Egner. Bertrand Russell, for those who don’t know, was a mathematician, philosopher and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. His paternal grandfather, in whose household he was raised after the death of his parents, was twice Prime Minister of Great Britain under Queen Victoria. Bertrand Russell himself, who inherited the title of Earl, wrote and spoke on science, politics, education, religion, morality and a host of other topics. He was also active in political causes, such as opposing World War I (for which he spent time in jail), opposing Hitler and Stalin, and drafting the Russell-Einstein Manifesto calling for nuclear disarmament (Albert Einstein signed it just days before his death, making it his last major public statement). His work had a profound influence on a great number of fields, especially those relating to logic and mathematics (including computer science) as well as philosophy. This collection of quotes comes from essays and books published over the first half of the twentieth century, plus a few speeches, such as Russell’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. It is divided into chapters based on topic, with the topics including psychology, religion, sex and marriage, education, politics, and ethics.

Of all the philosophical and religious works I’ve read over the past few years, from scriptures of the major religions to Plato, Confucius, and Marx, this is by far the most entertaining one I’ve come across (though being a collection of Russell’s best quotes, at least according to the editor, it has something of an unfair advantage). It is also the one that I found myself in closest agreement with. In most works of this kind, I find a number of things I completely agree with, other things I am not so sure or neutral about, and still others that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. In this case the vast majority fell into the first category. There were a few minor points I might question, and a few of his examples and analogies are slightly simplistic or just out of date (in two different references to human evolution, he mentions Piltdown Man, which is now known to be a forgery), and I’m a little dubious about some of his anthropological references. He often uses the same examples in different places (though this is understandable; I do the same myself). But these problems rarely negate his main points, which are almost all well made.

Russell is well known for his secular humanism, but not all he has to say about Christianity is critical (though a large portion of it is), and he targets other religions and philosophers as well. He is critical of Plato and Aristotle as well as Aquinas. The longest quote in this book tells the story of an imaginary debate between the Buddha and Nietzsche, in which the Buddha gets the upper hand (in fact Russell’s point was to attack Nietzsche’s ethical views). He also criticizes conservative thinking, war, narrow minded educational views, politicians, and our short-sighted profligacy with natural resources.

One reason Russell is so entertaining to read is his wit. It is with good reason that this collection is subtitled “Silhouettes in Satire”. He makes regular use of irony to get his point across. There are two many good examples to quote all of them, but here are some (the ones on Roosevelt and the use of natural resources seem particularly apt now):

“The view of the orthodox moralist (this includes the police and the magistrates, but hardly any modern educators) on the question of sex knowledge may, I fancy, be fairly stated as follows.... There is no doubt that sexual misconduct is promoted by sexual thoughts, and that the best road to virtue is to keep the young occupied in mind and body with matters wholly unconnected with sex. They must, therefore, be told nothing whatever about sex; they must as far as possible be prevented from talking about it with each other, and grownups must pretend that there is no such topic. It is possible by these means to keep a girl in ignorance until the night of her marriage, when it is to be expected that the facts will so shock her as to produce exactly that attitude towards sex which every sound moralist considers desirable in women.”

"Dread of disaster makes everybody act in the very way that increases the disaster. Psychologically the situation is analogous to that of people trampled to death when there is a panic in a theatre caused by a cry of 'Fire!' In the situation that existed in the great depression, things could only be set right by causing the idle plant to work again. But everybody felt that to do so was to risk almost certain loss. Within the framework of classical economics there was no solution. Roosevelt saved the situation by bold and heretical action. He spent billions of public money and created a huge public debt, but by so doing he revived production and brought his country out of the depression. Businessmen, who in spite of such a sharp lesson continued to believe in old-fashioned economics, were infinitely shocked, and although Roosevelt saved them from ruin, they continued to curse him and to speak of him as 'the madman in the White House.' Except for Fabre's investigation of the behavior of insects, I do not know any equally striking example of inability to learn from experience."

"The conscientious Radical is faced with great difficulties. He knows that he can increase his popularity by being false to his creed, and appealing to hatreds that have nothing to do with the reforms in which he believes. For example: a community that suffers from Japanese competition can easily be made indignant about bad labor conditions in Japan, and the unfair price-cutting that they render possible. But if the speaker goes on to say that it is Japanese employers who should be opposed, not Japanese employees, he will lose a large part of the sympathy of his audience. The Radical's only ultimate protection against demagogic appeals to misguided hatreds lies in education: he must convince intellectually a sufficient number of people to form the nucleus of a propagandist army. This is undoubtedly a difficult task, while the whole force of the State and the plutocracy is devoted to the fostering of unreason. But it is perhaps not so hopeless a task as many are now inclined to believe and in any case it cannot be shirked, since the appeal to unreasoning emotion can always be better done by charlatans."

"I cannot be content with a brief moment of riotous living followed by destitution, and however clever the scientists may be, there are some things that they cannot be expected to achieve. When they have used up all the easily available sources of energy that nature has scattered carelessly over the surface of our planet, they will have to resort to more laborious processes, and these will involve a gradual lowering of the standard of living. Modern industrialists are like men who have come for the first time upon fertile virgin land, and can live for a little while in great comfort with only a modicum of labor. It would be irrational to hope that the present heyday of industrialism will not develop far beyond its present level, but sooner or later, owing to the exhaustion of raw material, its capacity to supply human needs will diminish, not suddenly, but gradually. This could, of course, be prevented if men exercised any restraint or foresight in their present frenzied exploitation. Perhaps before it is too late they will learn to do so."

"There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading."

"Two great religions - Buddhism and Christianity - have sought to extend to the whole human race the cooperative feeling that is spontaneous towards fellow tribesmen. They have preached the brotherhood of man, showing by the use of the word 'brotherhood' that they are attempting to extend beyond its natural bounds an emotional attitude which, in its origin, is biological. If we are all children of God, then we are all one family. But in practice those who in theory adopted this creed have always felt that those who did not adopt it were not children of God but children of Satan, and the old mechanism of hatred of those outside the tribe has returned, giving added vigor to the creed, but in a direction which diverted it from its original purpose. Religion, morality, economic self- interest, the mere pursuit of biological survival, all supply to our intelligence unanswerable arguments in favor of worldwide co-operation, but the old instincts that have come down to us from our tribal ancestors rise up in indignation, feeling that life would lose its savor if there were no one to hate, that anyone who could love such a scoundrel as So-and-so would be a worm, that struggle is the law of life, and that in a world where we all loved one another there would be nothing to live for."

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War . . . has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

"One critic takes me to task because I say that only evil passions prevent the realization of a better world, and goes on triumphantly to ask, 'are all human emotions necessarily evil?' In the very book that leads my critic to this objection, I say that what the world needs is Christian love, or compassion. This, surely, is an emotion, and, in saying that this is what the world needs, I am not suggesting reason as a driving force. I can only suppose that this emotion, because it is neither cruel nor destructive, is not attractive to the apostles of unreason."

"All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things: That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: Mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity- except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy."