A topic that has received a fair amount of attention recently is that of economic inequality. The new Catholic Pope, Francis, has spoken about the issue, criticizing the concept of "trickle-down" economics and calling for greater efforts to end disparities in wealth. A report released a little over a week ago by the humanitarian group Oxfam revealed how extreme these disparities are. The 85 richest people in the world (just over 0.000001% of the total population of over 7 billion) have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world's population, though the latter are 40 million times more numerous. The richest 1% of the world population hold nearly half the world's wealth, or 65 times the amount owned by the poorest half. What's more, in many countries, including the United States, the gap is widening. In his State of the Union address the other day, US President Barack Obama spoke about the need to face this issue, and took a small step towards doing so by raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers to US$10.10 an hour.
Amazingly, there are some who criticize anyone who speaks out on this issue, whether it is Pope Francis, Oxfam, or President Obama. Incredibly, they seem to imply that the wealthy deserve everything they have, and that the poor for the most part likewise deserve to be poor, as if the richest of the rich really work thousands or millions of times harder than the poor, or have that much more ability. Aside from being absurd on the face of it, this ignores the many ways in which wealth breeds wealth, particularly when aided by a tax system that favors the rich, such as in the US, where low taxes on capital gains and other forms of income favor the richest Americans, or even more egregiously in Taiwan, as discussed in this fascinating but depressing article, which notes that in 2005 it was revealed that of the 40 wealthiest individuals in the country, "15 paid effective tax rates of under 1 percent, and eight of them paid no taxes at all." This problem is compounded when wealth enables the rich to buy political power. In the US, ridiculous court decisions such as Citizens United mean that rich individuals like the Koch brothers can spend millions to influence elections. While defenders of the Citizens United ruling claim that restricting election spending by private individuals and groups somehow restricts freedom of speech, that is absurd. If everyone has equal rights to post a blog or stand on the soapbox on a corner and say what they want, than we can say that everyone has freedom of speech. But when some people can spend millions to buy ads on television and the Internet in order to propagate their speech, then their speech, to paraphrase George Orwell, is more equal than that of everyone else, and their influence is correspondingly greater. While my opinions may be far more objective, fact-based and logical than that of a number of extremely wealthy individuals I can think of, that does little good when few people know of mine and they can ensure that millions of people hear theirs.
The ironic thing is that a more equal society would benefit most of the wealthy as well as the poor. Not only would the rich be less of a target for resentment and hostility, but a better educated, more affluent workforce would benefit the corporations who employ them and sell their products to them. While Henry Ford was an awful person in many ways, he did one thing that was very sensible. He realized that if he paid his workers well enough, not only would they be more content, but they could afford to buy the cars he was selling. Today, on the other hand, big corporations like Walmart and McDonald's pay their workers so little that the employees often have to rely on food stamps and other government assistance to get by. This short-sighted approach ultimately does no good to anyone. While there is no instant solution to the problem of disparities in wealth, raising wages for the poorest people while ensuring that the wealthiest pay more taxes – and, through reforms like public financing of elections, are less able to influence the political system – is a good place to start (for some more general suggestions about tackling global inequality, see this blog post by an Under-Secretary General of the United Nations).
Friday, January 31, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Some Musings on Possibilities for the Future
I don't like to make predictions about the future. For one thing, such predictions will inevitably turn out to be wrong in some way or another. Besides, unless there is something we can do to bring about the good predictions and prevent the bad ones from happening, there isn't much point in making specific prognostications. Instead, I'll just mention a few of the best and worst possibilities for the next few decades. Some of them it may be possible for us as individuals to help work towards or against, while others we may not be able to affect much one way or another.
Many of the more unpleasant possibilities for the upcoming decades involve environmental degradation and the related problem of overpopulation. If we don't start seriously addressing climate change, rising global temperatures will have increasingly dramatic effects, including drastic changes to local weather patterns, disruption of habitats for numerous species and rising sea levels that will endanger coastal and island communities all over the world. Even people who are not directly affected will feel indirect effects. People whose current homes become uninhabitable due to rising oceans or disruption of agricultural production will have to go elsewhere, and the influx of refugees will strain resources in their new homes. Products, particularly agricultural ones, will become scarcer as their original places of production become unsuitable. A particularly difficult problem will be water, as fresh water supplies are already under great strain in many places around the world. All of these problems will be exacerbated by overpopulation, something that is discussed in some of the links from my previous post. If climate refugees flee to places that are already crowded, their new homes may not be able to absorb them. The world can't really afford a drop in food production; in fact, if the population continues to increase at anything like the present rate, we will need to produce much more food than we do now. Between climate change and an increasing population, humans are likely to continue to squeeze out other species, resulting in an accelerating rate of extinctions. In a worst case scenario, the combination of strains on the global system could result in complete collapse. More likely, humanity will somehow muddle through, but at the cost of great suffering and the loss of many other species.
A less negative possibility for the future is that we may see some dramatic advances in medicine, including possibly development of ways to substantially increase human lifespans. But while such a possibility is less negative than climate disaster, it would not exactly be an unequivocally good thing. After all, if everyone can live longer, then it will increase the overpopulation problem and the strain on the world's resources. If longevity treatments are only available to the wealthy, the population implications will be less severe, but the divide between the haves and the have-nots will become even more pronounced, possibly resulting in fatal tensions in society. So while I personally might like to be able to take advantage of a drug that acts like a fountain of youth before I get too old, for the sake of humanity it might be better if we can solve some of our other problems first, including that of rapid population growth (perhaps if nothing else the longevity drug could come packaged with contraceptives...). Another possibility with somewhat mixed implications would be the development of ways to repair our brains and bodies, with the danger being that those who can afford to may use such techniques for frivolous personal gratification.
A less mixed positive development that we might hope to see in the upcoming decades is a human expansion into space. This could take a number of forms, but by the middle of this century, there are a number of things that I hope will have happened, whether or not I live to see them myself. One is that humans will not only have been to Mars but have taken the first steps towards permanent settlements there. I also hope people will have returned to the Moon, for the purposes of scientific research stations and even tourism. I also hope commercial space tourism in near Earth space will be well established, and that people will have visited a few asteroids, though my feelings about human exploitation of their mineral resources are slightly mixed. And while it is unlikely that humans will have reached Jupiter and Saturn by 2050, I hope we will have learned a lot more about them, and particularly that we will have checked out the possibility of life on locations like Europa, Enceladus, and even Titan. In a related field, I hope that by the middle of the century astronomers will have discovered evidence of planets with life orbiting other stars (e.g., planets with substantial amounts of free oxygen in their atmospheres, which would be an almost certain sign of life), though it will much longer before we'll be able to even hope to visit such a place in person.
Again, none of the above are predictions. They are just a few of the many possibilities for the future that I find it interesting to contemplate. There are of course many more, such as progress in eliminating social problems such as discrimination and poverty, or an improvement of the human rights situation globally (or a reversal of our gains in these areas). In any case, while I am not willing to lay any bets on what kind of future we'll actually see a few decades from now, I do strongly believe that humanity as a whole needs to make greater efforts in many areas to make sure that our future turns out to be as good as possible.
Many of the more unpleasant possibilities for the upcoming decades involve environmental degradation and the related problem of overpopulation. If we don't start seriously addressing climate change, rising global temperatures will have increasingly dramatic effects, including drastic changes to local weather patterns, disruption of habitats for numerous species and rising sea levels that will endanger coastal and island communities all over the world. Even people who are not directly affected will feel indirect effects. People whose current homes become uninhabitable due to rising oceans or disruption of agricultural production will have to go elsewhere, and the influx of refugees will strain resources in their new homes. Products, particularly agricultural ones, will become scarcer as their original places of production become unsuitable. A particularly difficult problem will be water, as fresh water supplies are already under great strain in many places around the world. All of these problems will be exacerbated by overpopulation, something that is discussed in some of the links from my previous post. If climate refugees flee to places that are already crowded, their new homes may not be able to absorb them. The world can't really afford a drop in food production; in fact, if the population continues to increase at anything like the present rate, we will need to produce much more food than we do now. Between climate change and an increasing population, humans are likely to continue to squeeze out other species, resulting in an accelerating rate of extinctions. In a worst case scenario, the combination of strains on the global system could result in complete collapse. More likely, humanity will somehow muddle through, but at the cost of great suffering and the loss of many other species.
A less negative possibility for the future is that we may see some dramatic advances in medicine, including possibly development of ways to substantially increase human lifespans. But while such a possibility is less negative than climate disaster, it would not exactly be an unequivocally good thing. After all, if everyone can live longer, then it will increase the overpopulation problem and the strain on the world's resources. If longevity treatments are only available to the wealthy, the population implications will be less severe, but the divide between the haves and the have-nots will become even more pronounced, possibly resulting in fatal tensions in society. So while I personally might like to be able to take advantage of a drug that acts like a fountain of youth before I get too old, for the sake of humanity it might be better if we can solve some of our other problems first, including that of rapid population growth (perhaps if nothing else the longevity drug could come packaged with contraceptives...). Another possibility with somewhat mixed implications would be the development of ways to repair our brains and bodies, with the danger being that those who can afford to may use such techniques for frivolous personal gratification.
A less mixed positive development that we might hope to see in the upcoming decades is a human expansion into space. This could take a number of forms, but by the middle of this century, there are a number of things that I hope will have happened, whether or not I live to see them myself. One is that humans will not only have been to Mars but have taken the first steps towards permanent settlements there. I also hope people will have returned to the Moon, for the purposes of scientific research stations and even tourism. I also hope commercial space tourism in near Earth space will be well established, and that people will have visited a few asteroids, though my feelings about human exploitation of their mineral resources are slightly mixed. And while it is unlikely that humans will have reached Jupiter and Saturn by 2050, I hope we will have learned a lot more about them, and particularly that we will have checked out the possibility of life on locations like Europa, Enceladus, and even Titan. In a related field, I hope that by the middle of the century astronomers will have discovered evidence of planets with life orbiting other stars (e.g., planets with substantial amounts of free oxygen in their atmospheres, which would be an almost certain sign of life), though it will much longer before we'll be able to even hope to visit such a place in person.
Again, none of the above are predictions. They are just a few of the many possibilities for the future that I find it interesting to contemplate. There are of course many more, such as progress in eliminating social problems such as discrimination and poverty, or an improvement of the human rights situation globally (or a reversal of our gains in these areas). In any case, while I am not willing to lay any bets on what kind of future we'll actually see a few decades from now, I do strongly believe that humanity as a whole needs to make greater efforts in many areas to make sure that our future turns out to be as good as possible.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Links to Interesting Articles
For my last post of the year, I'm simply posting links to some interesting articles from the past month or so.
A series on the effects that the enormous number of humans in the world may have on various issues. While in some cases they may be a little more optimistic or pessimistic than I would be, all of the articles are thought-provoking. Overall it's another reminder that we really need to address the issue of overpopulation, which effects so much else, especially the environment.
http://www.livescience.com/41316-11-billion-people-earth.html
http://www.livescience.com/41381-11-billion-people-climate-change.html
http://www.livescience.com/41300-11-billion-food-security.html
http://news.yahoo.com/11-billion-people-mean-earths-animals-140541848.html
This writer does a good job of making a point I've tried to make from time to time myself about scientific ignorance and the inability to think logically.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260374/-Couric-s-anti-vaccination-segment-a-symptom-of-wider-scientific-illiteracy
A commentary on Raul Castro's presence at Nelson Mandela's memorial service that aims well-deserved barbs at Castro, Mugabe, American right-wingers, pro-Castro sentiment on the left, and in general the ridiculous but widespread tendency of people of all ideological stripes to look at things in terms of black and white.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/10/ra-l-castro-honors-mandela-but-ignores-his-message.html
An interesting look at China's recent aggressive moves and their implications.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/chinas-dangerous-air-and-_b_4446349.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
A brief but good commentary on the situation in South Sudan from a man who has been deeply involved in the region over the past few years and also happens to be one of the best known actors in the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/preventing-south-sudan-inferno-104500410--politics.html
As an antidote to these somewhat depressing articles about how humanity screwing up things here on Earth, here's one summarizing the most intriguing discoveries of planets outside the Solar System that were made in the past year. It's nice to think that there may possibly be life on one or two of these worlds, and if not on these ones than on some of the many other planets that we can expect to find in the coming decades. Another nice thought is that be the time humanity has any reasonable prospect of reaching any of these places, we will almost certainly have to have become much more mature and rational as a species.
http://www.livescience.com/42217-most-amazing-exoplanet-discoveries-2013.html
A series on the effects that the enormous number of humans in the world may have on various issues. While in some cases they may be a little more optimistic or pessimistic than I would be, all of the articles are thought-provoking. Overall it's another reminder that we really need to address the issue of overpopulation, which effects so much else, especially the environment.
http://www.livescience.com/41316-11-billion-people-earth.html
http://www.livescience.com/41381-11-billion-people-climate-change.html
http://www.livescience.com/41300-11-billion-food-security.html
http://news.yahoo.com/11-billion-people-mean-earths-animals-140541848.html
This writer does a good job of making a point I've tried to make from time to time myself about scientific ignorance and the inability to think logically.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260374/-Couric-s-anti-vaccination-segment-a-symptom-of-wider-scientific-illiteracy
A commentary on Raul Castro's presence at Nelson Mandela's memorial service that aims well-deserved barbs at Castro, Mugabe, American right-wingers, pro-Castro sentiment on the left, and in general the ridiculous but widespread tendency of people of all ideological stripes to look at things in terms of black and white.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/10/ra-l-castro-honors-mandela-but-ignores-his-message.html
An interesting look at China's recent aggressive moves and their implications.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/chinas-dangerous-air-and-_b_4446349.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
A brief but good commentary on the situation in South Sudan from a man who has been deeply involved in the region over the past few years and also happens to be one of the best known actors in the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/preventing-south-sudan-inferno-104500410--politics.html
As an antidote to these somewhat depressing articles about how humanity screwing up things here on Earth, here's one summarizing the most intriguing discoveries of planets outside the Solar System that were made in the past year. It's nice to think that there may possibly be life on one or two of these worlds, and if not on these ones than on some of the many other planets that we can expect to find in the coming decades. Another nice thought is that be the time humanity has any reasonable prospect of reaching any of these places, we will almost certainly have to have become much more mature and rational as a species.
http://www.livescience.com/42217-most-amazing-exoplanet-discoveries-2013.html
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Death in Africa
The title of this post refers to a major event that took place in Africa a few days ago, and it isn't the death of the anti-apartheid leader and former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela. That isn't to say that Mandela's death wasn't a significant event, or that he isn't worthy of at least much of the attention and praise being lavished on him. After all, he was a leader of a type that is rarely seen and become even rarer in the future, at least as far as people's view of them, as pointed out in this article. Of the examples discussed in the article, Malala Yousafzai, while worthy of great respect and admiration for her courage, cannot yet be compared with experienced leaders of a long-term political struggle. As for Aung San Suu Kyi, I have great respect for her as well, but I have been somewhat disappointed with her lately, due to her failure to speak out strongly against anti-Muslim violence in Burma. The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, I would probably rank even above Mandela as someone who comes about as close as a public leader can to being admirable in all respects. If anything, it could be argued that he is too willing to forgive and have compassion for his oppressors. Not only does he oppose violence, unlike Mandela who at least for a time embraced armed struggle, but he is willing to give up Tibet's legitimate claims to complete independence in an attempt to satisfy a Chinese government that nevertheless continues in a relentless attempt to demonize him with outrageous falsehoods that no one who has actually heard him speak or read his writings could possibly believe. It is true, as the article points out, that he is a religious leader, but he is a religious leader who wrote an excellent book (one I am reading now) called Beyond Religion, calling for an ethical system that is not tied to any specific religion. But even if the Dalai Lama and perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi approach Mandela's stature, few if any other leaders today can do so.
But while Mandela's death was significant, I think even he would be disturbed or even appalled that it had caused the world to ignore the deadly violence that took place in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, the day before he died. I'm sure Mandela would want everyone to spare a thought for the hundred or so people slaughtered in the violence there, even at the cost of a little less attention on his own, hardly untimely death. Unfortunately, few in the West pay much attention to war and violence in Africa, since most people are unable to tell the CAR from Mali, Somalia, or the Congo, to name just a few countries recently ridden by conflict. In the US people would rather obsess about glitches in health care reform (and in Taiwan about political infighting or in the case of an appallingly large group of narrow-minded wackos whether some groups of people should be allowed to get married) than worry about people dying in a distant, impoverished country.
On the other hand, while a little more of a media spotlight on the CAR would be an excellent first step, it alone would not solve the problem. The French dispatch of soldiers to the country may do more, though considering their seeming reluctance to commit to too much, it may not solve the problem. But the French intervention in Bangui led me to think of another question. Whenever there is even a prospect of US military intervention anywhere in the world, there is a lot of opposition, both inside and outside the US. Of American opponents, some are on the right, not only the (rather rare) true libertarians who are genuine isolationists, but those who will oppose any intervention by the current administration simply because they will oppose anything Obama does (such that many of them will condemn him for not intervening forcefully enough, and at the same time oppose any intervention he actually makes). But for me a more puzzling group are those on the left. Though there are very good, logical reasons for opposing US military intervention in many situations, based on the rhetoric of some on the left, they would oppose any such action under any circumstances. But what would they suggest be done in a case like the CAR, or in the 1990s, Rwanda? Simply standing back while people get slaughtered? To me that attitude seems more appropriate to Ayn Rand disciples on the right. Obviously a non-military solution would be preferable, but I can't imagine one that could work in a situation that has deteriorated this far. Besides, it's quite possible that with a sufficient show of force, the foreign troops will not actually have to fight, as they may be able to intimidate what in many cases are little more than armed gangs (though of course the lessons of Somalia shouldn't be forgotten).
Of course it should also be remembered that the CAR is not Syria or even Libya. Despite what happened to the US in Somalia, it shouldn't take remotely as much of a military effort simply to prevent the relatively disorganized armed bands in Bangui from going on a killing spree as would stopping Assad from doing the same. This is why I personally have considerably greater reservations about the US taking military action in Syria than I would about it doing so in a country like the CAR. Perhaps a better question is why the US doesn't take a more active role in stopping violence in such places. It may be reasonable to say that the global perception, right or wrong, of the US as an overbearing wannabe world policeman precludes unilateral American action, but the US could at least provide active support for a multinational effort in such cases. Its lack of any apparent inclination to do so in impoverished, non-strategic countries like the CAR is as strong an argument as any other that US rhetoric implying impartial benevolence in its actions around the world is so much hot air.
But while Mandela's death was significant, I think even he would be disturbed or even appalled that it had caused the world to ignore the deadly violence that took place in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, the day before he died. I'm sure Mandela would want everyone to spare a thought for the hundred or so people slaughtered in the violence there, even at the cost of a little less attention on his own, hardly untimely death. Unfortunately, few in the West pay much attention to war and violence in Africa, since most people are unable to tell the CAR from Mali, Somalia, or the Congo, to name just a few countries recently ridden by conflict. In the US people would rather obsess about glitches in health care reform (and in Taiwan about political infighting or in the case of an appallingly large group of narrow-minded wackos whether some groups of people should be allowed to get married) than worry about people dying in a distant, impoverished country.
On the other hand, while a little more of a media spotlight on the CAR would be an excellent first step, it alone would not solve the problem. The French dispatch of soldiers to the country may do more, though considering their seeming reluctance to commit to too much, it may not solve the problem. But the French intervention in Bangui led me to think of another question. Whenever there is even a prospect of US military intervention anywhere in the world, there is a lot of opposition, both inside and outside the US. Of American opponents, some are on the right, not only the (rather rare) true libertarians who are genuine isolationists, but those who will oppose any intervention by the current administration simply because they will oppose anything Obama does (such that many of them will condemn him for not intervening forcefully enough, and at the same time oppose any intervention he actually makes). But for me a more puzzling group are those on the left. Though there are very good, logical reasons for opposing US military intervention in many situations, based on the rhetoric of some on the left, they would oppose any such action under any circumstances. But what would they suggest be done in a case like the CAR, or in the 1990s, Rwanda? Simply standing back while people get slaughtered? To me that attitude seems more appropriate to Ayn Rand disciples on the right. Obviously a non-military solution would be preferable, but I can't imagine one that could work in a situation that has deteriorated this far. Besides, it's quite possible that with a sufficient show of force, the foreign troops will not actually have to fight, as they may be able to intimidate what in many cases are little more than armed gangs (though of course the lessons of Somalia shouldn't be forgotten).
Of course it should also be remembered that the CAR is not Syria or even Libya. Despite what happened to the US in Somalia, it shouldn't take remotely as much of a military effort simply to prevent the relatively disorganized armed bands in Bangui from going on a killing spree as would stopping Assad from doing the same. This is why I personally have considerably greater reservations about the US taking military action in Syria than I would about it doing so in a country like the CAR. Perhaps a better question is why the US doesn't take a more active role in stopping violence in such places. It may be reasonable to say that the global perception, right or wrong, of the US as an overbearing wannabe world policeman precludes unilateral American action, but the US could at least provide active support for a multinational effort in such cases. Its lack of any apparent inclination to do so in impoverished, non-strategic countries like the CAR is as strong an argument as any other that US rhetoric implying impartial benevolence in its actions around the world is so much hot air.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
US Health Care Reform, Iran Nuclear Deal, Chinese Imperialism, Women's Rights and More
The big story in US politics over the last few weeks has been the problems with the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act (so-called "Obamacare). This topic has been beaten to death by pundits and commentators, so I'll just briefly summarize my views on it. Yes, the administration screwed up by failing to do a better job with the website. Also, President Obama should have known better than to make statements promising that everyone could keep their insurance policies if they wanted to without qualifying them (it seems he did qualify such statements in early speeches on the topic, but when the debate over the reforms got heated, he dropped the qualifying remarks). But from what I've seen, the website is improving and people are finally starting to enroll. Also, many of those who had their insurance cancelled originally had junk insurance that would have been practically worthless if they'd actually gotten sick. Also, some of the sticker shock came from insurance companies scamming people. They cancelled their old policies (which were junk policies that didn't meet the minimum requirements under the law – and of course there should be some minimum standards, just as there are for automobiles and all sorts of other things) and offered them overpriced new ones, without bothering to mention that they could shop for a better deal on the health care exchanges. It does seem that some people are still going to have to pay a lot more, but overall much of the criticism seems overblown. At this point, the Affordable Care Act may still be a disaster in many people's minds, but it isn't so in reality. Of course a public option or a single payer system would be a lot simpler and better for everyone (except perhaps the very wealthy and those with a stake in the old system).
Another big news story is the short-term agreement reached between Iran and the US, Britain, France, etc. offering Iran some limited relief from sanctions in return for suspending its nuclear activities and taking certain other steps. Of course this deal has been criticized by Israel and American right-wingers, who apparently insist on a full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Some in Congress still seem intent on torpedoing this deal and any future ones by increasing sanctions. These opponents of the deal claim that the current deal is in Iran's favor, whereas if prior sanctions forced Iran to negotiate, then more sanctions will force them to capitulate completely. I am not certain that this deal is the absolute best that the US and other Western powers could have gotten, but the implication by opponents that it amounts to Munich-like appeasement (the usual charge) is ridiculous. Their own attitude brings to mind a more appropriate but far less cited analogy from the same period of European history, namely the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I. By forcing Germany to accept all the responsibility for the war and pay them heavy reparations, the Allied powers (particularly Britain and France) created great hardship and resentment in Germany, setting the stage for the rise of the Nazis and World War II. Likewise, attempting to impose punishing sanctions on Iran at this point will only ensure that the Iranian hardliners will gain the upper hand, all attempts by Iran to reach some accommodation with the West will be abandoned, and the country will pursue nuclear weapons at full speed. If Iran is back into a corner, the end result will be either war or a nuclear Iran, or even both. On the other hand, negotiation means both sides have to compromise. If the West and Israel want Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner, they have to give Iran something in return. So while it may not be perfect, this deal is a step in the right direction, and is certainly better than the alternative offered by the US and Israeli hardliners.
Another big international story lately is China's aggressive move to claim the airspace over the ocean to its east, which has stirred a strong negative reaction, not only from Japan, but from the US, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Taiwan (though Taiwan's response has been relatively wimpy, not surprisingly considering the current weak-kneed government). The US sent bombers through China's new air defense zone, and South Korea says its own planes have ignored the zone. China continues to spout strong rhetoric, but it appears to have largely shot itself in the foot, not least because it has now stirred up its own rabid nationalists, who seem to want it to go to war rather than back down again. Also, if it really tried to enforce the zone, some believe it would be a big strain on its military resources. But while China's relatively small scale imperialistic moves in the east have angered its neighbors, its continued repression in its imperial possessions of Tibet and East Turkestan continues with very little international outcry.
Speaking of oppression, a landmark resolution on women's rights defenders was passed by the United Nations General Assembly. Unfortunately it was watered down by the usual subjects using predictable but still disgusting arguments, with backward patriarchies insisting on respect for traditional customs and traditions (i.e., those that repress women) and countries like China and Russia insisting the women's right defenders follow "national laws" (i.e., those used to repress dissent). Regrettably, these reactionary forces were able to force deletion of a paragraph that really should have been in the resolution, saying that countries should "strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and women human rights defenders and refrain from invoking any customs, traditions or religious consideration to avoid their obligations." Still, the passage of the resolution is a small step towards greater respect for women's rights – and it also brought the opposition out into the open.
We should also remember that the Philippines is still recovering from the disastrous Typhoon Haiyan, though at least agencies have found ways to rebuild and help the survivors simultaneously, by paying them to help with the work. But even the Philippines is still getting more media attention than some other places where people are also suffering greatly. Though you might not know it from the headlines, DR Congo is still mired in misery, and the Central African Republic is facing an extremely tense situation that has the potential to erupt into genocidal massacres. Those with the wherewithal to help in these places should do so, and the rest of us should help keep at least some attention focused on these crises.
Another big news story is the short-term agreement reached between Iran and the US, Britain, France, etc. offering Iran some limited relief from sanctions in return for suspending its nuclear activities and taking certain other steps. Of course this deal has been criticized by Israel and American right-wingers, who apparently insist on a full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Some in Congress still seem intent on torpedoing this deal and any future ones by increasing sanctions. These opponents of the deal claim that the current deal is in Iran's favor, whereas if prior sanctions forced Iran to negotiate, then more sanctions will force them to capitulate completely. I am not certain that this deal is the absolute best that the US and other Western powers could have gotten, but the implication by opponents that it amounts to Munich-like appeasement (the usual charge) is ridiculous. Their own attitude brings to mind a more appropriate but far less cited analogy from the same period of European history, namely the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I. By forcing Germany to accept all the responsibility for the war and pay them heavy reparations, the Allied powers (particularly Britain and France) created great hardship and resentment in Germany, setting the stage for the rise of the Nazis and World War II. Likewise, attempting to impose punishing sanctions on Iran at this point will only ensure that the Iranian hardliners will gain the upper hand, all attempts by Iran to reach some accommodation with the West will be abandoned, and the country will pursue nuclear weapons at full speed. If Iran is back into a corner, the end result will be either war or a nuclear Iran, or even both. On the other hand, negotiation means both sides have to compromise. If the West and Israel want Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner, they have to give Iran something in return. So while it may not be perfect, this deal is a step in the right direction, and is certainly better than the alternative offered by the US and Israeli hardliners.
Another big international story lately is China's aggressive move to claim the airspace over the ocean to its east, which has stirred a strong negative reaction, not only from Japan, but from the US, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Taiwan (though Taiwan's response has been relatively wimpy, not surprisingly considering the current weak-kneed government). The US sent bombers through China's new air defense zone, and South Korea says its own planes have ignored the zone. China continues to spout strong rhetoric, but it appears to have largely shot itself in the foot, not least because it has now stirred up its own rabid nationalists, who seem to want it to go to war rather than back down again. Also, if it really tried to enforce the zone, some believe it would be a big strain on its military resources. But while China's relatively small scale imperialistic moves in the east have angered its neighbors, its continued repression in its imperial possessions of Tibet and East Turkestan continues with very little international outcry.
Speaking of oppression, a landmark resolution on women's rights defenders was passed by the United Nations General Assembly. Unfortunately it was watered down by the usual subjects using predictable but still disgusting arguments, with backward patriarchies insisting on respect for traditional customs and traditions (i.e., those that repress women) and countries like China and Russia insisting the women's right defenders follow "national laws" (i.e., those used to repress dissent). Regrettably, these reactionary forces were able to force deletion of a paragraph that really should have been in the resolution, saying that countries should "strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and women human rights defenders and refrain from invoking any customs, traditions or religious consideration to avoid their obligations." Still, the passage of the resolution is a small step towards greater respect for women's rights – and it also brought the opposition out into the open.
We should also remember that the Philippines is still recovering from the disastrous Typhoon Haiyan, though at least agencies have found ways to rebuild and help the survivors simultaneously, by paying them to help with the work. But even the Philippines is still getting more media attention than some other places where people are also suffering greatly. Though you might not know it from the headlines, DR Congo is still mired in misery, and the Central African Republic is facing an extremely tense situation that has the potential to erupt into genocidal massacres. Those with the wherewithal to help in these places should do so, and the rest of us should help keep at least some attention focused on these crises.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Learning to Live on the Earth (with Links to Various Interesting Stuff)
I talk a lot about the environment on this blog, because in some ways it is more important than any other issue. After all, if humanity can't find a way to live on the Earth without catastrophically disrupting the environment, it won't matter much whether we can solve our other problems or not (though I support colonizing space, that can only involve a tiny fraction of humanity for the foreseeable future). The terrible tragedy in the Philippines is just one example of how destructive the environment can be, and while this particular typhoon may not have been directly caused by global warming, if we continue to heat up the planet, we can expect more of this and other kinds of environmental disasters. The following are some links to various interesting things on the Internet related to humanity's relationship to the environment and the Earth.
First, there are a couple of news stories here and here about how carbon dioxide levels have reached highs not seen for nearly a million years, that is, since well before modern humans evolved. What's more, these records will soon be broken, even if we take immediate action to drastically reduce carbon emissions – and there is little sign of that happening. Unfortunately, in the world's largest economy, the United States, there is still a large contingent of stubborn ignoramuses who insist that there isn't even a problem, and enough of them are in Congress to block most substantial action. Even on the other side of the political divide, while President Obama has done quite a few good things on the environment where he has had the power to act without going through Congress, his environmental record still has a few serious black marks, such as his administration's continued promotion of corn-based ethanol. As for other countries, though Europe has been more proactive in fighting climate change, even they could do better, and most other nations are doing no better than the US or even worse (though there is less excuse for failing to act when you are a wealthy nation like the US).
Then there's this fascinating map simulating births and deaths around the world in real time (for a larger and more detailed version, click here). Of course the map isn't capable of tracking actual births and deaths, but with sufficient statistical information on birth and death rates around the world, it can simulate them fairly closely (as a side note, I should point out one serious flaw on the map: Taiwan is labeled as a "Province of China", an absurd label that crops up on some websites from time to time apparently due to use of country codes from the UN [which of course goes along with Chinese propaganda with respect to Taiwan], though Taiwan's current flag also appears and it is in effect treated as what it is, a separate country). The most fascinating – and disturbing – aspect of the simulation is the contrast between the birth and death rates. In only four minutes, a thousand new babies have been born, but in the same space of time, fewer than five hundred people have died. In other words, in only four minutes, the world's population has increased by over five hundred. In ten minutes, it has increased by almost 1,500. At that rate, it only takes five days to add a million people to the world's population. This rapidly increasing population only increases the environmental problems we face, including climate change. It is no surprise that it has been suggested that one of the best short term ways to fight climate change is contraception, or at least radically reducing the birth rate. I wholeheartedly agree.
But to conclude on a more pleasant note, NASA recently published a new image compiled from pictures taken by the spacecraft Cassini while in orbit around Saturn. The pictures were taken while Cassini was on the dark side of the planet and so Saturn was eclipsing the Sun, allowing the much fainter inner planets to be seen (normally the glare of the Sun drowns them out). So in this picture, in addition to an incredible back-lit view of Saturn's rings and a few of its satellites, we can see a small red dot, a slightly bigger white dot, and a similarly-sized blue dot (with a faint grey dot attached). These are, respectively, Mars, Venus, and the Earth itself (plus the Moon). This is, more or less, how our planet looks from Saturn, at a distance of over a billion kilometers. A picture like this helps put humanity's problems into perspective, but it's also a reminder of how small the Earth really is on an astronomical scale. If we can learn to treat the Earth's resources as the limited, precious things they are, perhaps humanity can survive for a long time into the future and find ways to solve all its other problems.
First, there are a couple of news stories here and here about how carbon dioxide levels have reached highs not seen for nearly a million years, that is, since well before modern humans evolved. What's more, these records will soon be broken, even if we take immediate action to drastically reduce carbon emissions – and there is little sign of that happening. Unfortunately, in the world's largest economy, the United States, there is still a large contingent of stubborn ignoramuses who insist that there isn't even a problem, and enough of them are in Congress to block most substantial action. Even on the other side of the political divide, while President Obama has done quite a few good things on the environment where he has had the power to act without going through Congress, his environmental record still has a few serious black marks, such as his administration's continued promotion of corn-based ethanol. As for other countries, though Europe has been more proactive in fighting climate change, even they could do better, and most other nations are doing no better than the US or even worse (though there is less excuse for failing to act when you are a wealthy nation like the US).
Then there's this fascinating map simulating births and deaths around the world in real time (for a larger and more detailed version, click here). Of course the map isn't capable of tracking actual births and deaths, but with sufficient statistical information on birth and death rates around the world, it can simulate them fairly closely (as a side note, I should point out one serious flaw on the map: Taiwan is labeled as a "Province of China", an absurd label that crops up on some websites from time to time apparently due to use of country codes from the UN [which of course goes along with Chinese propaganda with respect to Taiwan], though Taiwan's current flag also appears and it is in effect treated as what it is, a separate country). The most fascinating – and disturbing – aspect of the simulation is the contrast between the birth and death rates. In only four minutes, a thousand new babies have been born, but in the same space of time, fewer than five hundred people have died. In other words, in only four minutes, the world's population has increased by over five hundred. In ten minutes, it has increased by almost 1,500. At that rate, it only takes five days to add a million people to the world's population. This rapidly increasing population only increases the environmental problems we face, including climate change. It is no surprise that it has been suggested that one of the best short term ways to fight climate change is contraception, or at least radically reducing the birth rate. I wholeheartedly agree.
But to conclude on a more pleasant note, NASA recently published a new image compiled from pictures taken by the spacecraft Cassini while in orbit around Saturn. The pictures were taken while Cassini was on the dark side of the planet and so Saturn was eclipsing the Sun, allowing the much fainter inner planets to be seen (normally the glare of the Sun drowns them out). So in this picture, in addition to an incredible back-lit view of Saturn's rings and a few of its satellites, we can see a small red dot, a slightly bigger white dot, and a similarly-sized blue dot (with a faint grey dot attached). These are, respectively, Mars, Venus, and the Earth itself (plus the Moon). This is, more or less, how our planet looks from Saturn, at a distance of over a billion kilometers. A picture like this helps put humanity's problems into perspective, but it's also a reminder of how small the Earth really is on an astronomical scale. If we can learn to treat the Earth's resources as the limited, precious things they are, perhaps humanity can survive for a long time into the future and find ways to solve all its other problems.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
What I've Been Reading: July 2013 to September 2013 (Featuring the Work of Iain M. Banks)
This covers nearly all of the books I read or at least finished in this period (in the case of the non-fiction ones, I had started reading them previously but only read a bit at a time). There was another novel that I finished at the beginning of October, but I decided to cover that in a future post. As for the reference to Iain M. Banks in the title, I read two of his novels in this period and I have talked about them at greater length than most of the other books. I also spent a couple of paragraphs talking about his work in general, for reasons explained below.
The Book of Daniel by E. L. Doctorow
This is a thought-provoking though dark and slightly disturbing book. The book centers on a graduate student named Daniel Lewin and his family. As the book progresses, it slowly becomes clear that Daniel Lewin’s birth parents, the Isaacsons, are based very closely on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, though there are some differences. One obvious one is that the Rosenbergs had two sons, while in the novel, Daniel has a sister. Also, both Daniel and his sister Susan have some serious issues that I don’t think either of the Rosenberg sons had (I once met Robert Meeropol, the younger son of the Rosenbergs, in person and as I read this book I couldn’t help wondering if he had read it and what he thought of Susan’s suicidal tendencies and Daniel’s occasionally abusive behavior to his wife and child). Regardless, the book paints a dark and probably broadly accurate picture of the 1950s anti-Communist paranoia that led to the Rosenbergs’ deaths. The story switches almost at random between first person narration by Daniel and third person. While this doesn’t do much for the book’s readability, it creates an additional parallel with the biblical book of Daniel, which also switches between first and third person, if not as frequently. The book is pretty well-written and tackles some important issues, though it is not an easy read with its occasionally jarring shifts in time and subject as well as narrative point of view.
Tailchaser’s Song by Tad Williams
This was the first published novel by fantasy author Tad Williams. It is an animal fantasy featuring cats. Inevitably it invites comparisons to Richard Adams’ Watership Down, the best known animal fantasy of this type. There are definitely some similarities, such as the tales told by the cats about their mythological figures, which bring to mind the tales of El-ahrairah in Watership Down. However, Williams has his own style, and his picture of the feral cat society is as well drawn in its way as the society of Adams’ rabbits (the cats’ story of the origin and nature of M’an – humans – is particularly clever). The plot is sufficiently engrossing and the characters are appealing. There are some twists, though a few of them are not difficult to guess at. All in all, while the book doesn’t have the depth or complexity of Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy or his standalone novel The War of the Flowers, it is a solid and enjoyable fantasy.
Matter by Iain M. Banks
On one of the flights we took during our trip in June, I picked up an International Herald Tribune in which I came across the headline “Iain Banks, 59, Scottish novelist and sci-fi writer”. So it was that I learned that one of my favorite science fiction authors (and author of several mainstream novels that I also quite liked) had died of gall bladder cancer. Apparently he had only been diagnosed with it a few months earlier, and had learned at the time that it was already too late to stop it. In his public announcement about it, he showed that he hadn’t lost his sense of humor; he also announced that he was marrying his longtime girlfriend, remarking he had asked her if she would “do me the honour of becoming my widow.” He seemed to have come to terms with his fate, though regrettably he succumbed even faster than he was expected to, so he didn’t survive until the release of his final book, which had already been moved up due to his condition.
Iain Banks wrote both mainstream, “literary” fiction and science fiction. He wrote the former under the name “Iain Banks” and the latter as “Iain M. Banks”. Both varieties were popular and critically praised, though he complained that some literary snobs seemed to regard his mainstream novels as his “real” work, even suggesting that he only wrote science fiction as a money-maker to support his mainstream novels. Banks said if anything it was the other way round, as his greatest love was science fiction, even though the mainstream novels often sold better. The science fiction work was popular as well though, and as a number of commentators (such as this one) have remarked, in the Culture, the society at the center of most of his science fiction novels, he created one of the most convincing utopias ever to appear in literature, one that most people would actually want to live in.
Matter was the only Banks novel I already had a copy of that I hadn’t read yet. Published in 2008, it was his first Culture novel in eight years. He said in an interview that he had been worried that he was running out of ideas for his science fiction (he observed that while mainstream fiction can focus on things like relationship, science fiction needs big ideas to make it worth writing), but he was able to get his creative juices flowing by writing the non-Culture science fiction novel The Algebraist, an excellent work certainly not lacking in ideas. Matter is also packed full of ideas, the most impressive being the Shellworlds, though the Nestworld of the alien Morthanveld is also incredibly imaginative. I won’t attempt to describe either here, but while they may strike a physicist as somewhat improbable – they would take astounding amounts of energy to construct, as well as plenty of “unobtainium” (Banks himself has said this is what many of the Culture’s artifacts are made of) – the same could be said of Dyson spheres, and these are at least as cool and rather more complex.
The story revolves around the three children of the king of the Sarl, a people living on one of the layers of the Shellworld Sursamen. The Sarl are at a technological level somewhere between that of the Renaissance and the early Industrial Revolution, though they are aware of more advanced civilizations, including the Culture. Much of the novel focuses on assassinations, political maneuvering, and war among the Sarl, though gradually it becomes apparent that there is a deeper, more ancient mystery at the heart of these machinations, one that draws in the more advanced civilizations, including the Culture. The novel’s final climax – and the similarly explosive (ahem) event that heralds the fast-paced ending section – may seem a little abrupt considering the long set-up, but according to Banks, this was deliberate on his part. I might have liked to have seen a few more things explained and more loose ends tied up, but I’ll also admit there is an artistic neatness to the sudden, dramatic ending, and there is a brief epilogue that provides a partial dénouement.
One word of warning for those who become overly attached to the characters in a novel (semi-spoiler alert): at some point midway through I started speculating on which of the major characters (the three siblings plus two or three others) might end up dying. From his other books, I knew that Banks occasionally kills off major characters even on the “good guy” side, sometimes unexpectedly, though generally not quite as casually as, say, George R. R. Martin. In this case, I started wondering who if anyone among the main characters might not make it. Without giving too much away, I will say that as it turned out, the body count was higher than I expected. In one or two cases, one could reasonably wonder why Banks spent so much time developing a character only to eliminate them the way he does. This feeling is enhanced by the contrast between the lengthy build-up and the fast-paced conclusion, something that some readers have criticized, not entirely without reason. But as I said, Banks did this deliberately (though of course the critics may argue that he was wrong to do so), and there's something to be said for defying the reader's expectations – after all, it isn't as if unexpected death doesn't strike in real life, or that such death necessarily negates all prior meaning in the person's life (a topic that is the theme of the novel I'll discuss next). In any case, Matter has so many interesting ideas that combined with Banks’ literary but very readable and occasionally witty prose, the book is excellent reading despite these issues. As with a book like Infinite Jest (which doesn’t have a proper ending at all), the journey is well worth any disappointment the reader may feel with the destination.
The Bridge of San Luis Rey by Thornton Wilder
This classic novel, which won Thornton Wilder a Pulitzer Prize and has appeared on a number of best novel lists, tells the stories of the five people who died when a (fictional) bridge in Peru collapsed in the 18th century, and of the priest who investigated their lives in hopes of scientifically proving that God had chosen these particular individuals to die on this occasion. Some of the characters are based roughly on real people (for instance, there really was a famous actress in 18th century Peru named Micaela Villegas who was known as La Perricholi and was the mistress of the Viceroy), but while Wilder’s depiction of 18th century Peru seems very true to life, his primary interest is not to relate actual history, but to explore deeper questions. According to Wilder himself, one of his inspirations was Luke 13:4-5, in which Jesus ask rhetorically whether the people who died in the collapse of a tower in Jerusalem were guiltier than anyone else, and concludes that they were not. Wilder uses his novel to pose a similar question about what gives a life meaning. But, as he explained afterward, the book is not meant to actually answer these questions, just to state them clearly. The result is a thought-provoking meditation on human existence. Wilder’s prose is clear and very readable, which together with the relative shortness of the book (just over a hundred pages) makes this one of the most accessible classic novels around.
Beowulf (translated by Burton Raffel)
Beowulf, written – or composed, as it was probably originally an oral work rather than a written one – by an unknown author sometime between 700 and 1000 CE, is the most famous extant work in Old English (also known as Anglo-Saxon). This modern translation is surprisingly readable. This is probably helped by the poet’s digressions being shorter and less frequent than I recall Virgil’s being (it’s been longer since I’ve read either of Homer’s epic poems, so I can’t remember how often he went off on tangents), not to mention the relatively short length of the poem (it’s just under a hundred pages in the volume I have).
One interesting aspect of the poem is that in several cases where the poet mentions a woman who is the daughter, mother or wife of a male character, he doesn’t give their name (Beowulf’s mother is one such example). This would seem to hint that women were considered unimportant. On the other hand, a couple of women do get named, such as Hrothgar’s queen’s Welthow and Higlac’s queen Higd, and are described quite favorably. Welthow is even given several speeches. Another interesting thing about the poem is that it is obvious that it was a major inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien’s work, and even for fantasy role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. Of course, Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon and wrote scholarly works on Beowulf, so it is not really surprising that it would have influenced him, but it’s still striking how much of it will seem familiar to readers of The Lord of the Rings (such as the references to kings as “ring-givers”) or to D&D players (Beowulf’s search for and battle against Grendel’s mother in an underground lair sounds very much like a D&D adventure). So not only is Beowulf a must-read for those interested in the history of English literature or in the societies of the medieval Viking peoples, it also holds considerable interest for fans of fantasy and even role-playing gamers.
The Grand Tour: A Traveler’s Guide to the Solar System by Ron Miller and William K. Hartmann
I recently finished reading through the third edition of this book (published 2005), an updated and expanded edition of a book I first acquired as a boy in the early 1980s, when it was one of my favorite astronomy books. The approach taken by the authors is different from the standard way of examining the Solar System starting with Mercury and traveling outward. Instead, they look at the planets, satellites, asteroids and other bodies in the Solar System (other than the Sun itself) beginning with the largest, the gas giant Jupiter, and proceeding in order of size. Thus Saturn is next, followed by Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Venus, Mars, Jupiter’s moon Ganymede, Saturn’s moon Titan, Mercury, and so forth. Though there are quite a few photos taken by space probes or the Hubble Space Telescope, most of the illustrations are artwork and paintings by the authors, showing imaginary but highly realistic views of the various Solar System bodies. While Miller did the majority of the art, Hartmann, who is also a professional astronomer, did a substantial amount as well. Both also shared writing duties. In the course of the book they occasionally go off on short diatribes about ignorant people back on Earth, such as “conservative ideologues” who attack the science of climate change or the contrast between the empirical science that allowed astronomers to predict the tidal heating of Io and the claims of “religious fundamentalists and mystics” like self-proclaimed astral travelers and so-called creation scientists. But these asides are quite brief, not to mention being correct, so the vast majority of the book is filled with clear descriptions of the various planets and other objects, and those incredible illustrations. While it may be that no human alive today – or even in the far future – will actually be able to stand on most of these bodies and see the literally otherworldly vistas they offer, through Miller and Hartmann’s work we can at least get a good idea of what it would be like to do so.
The First Punic War: A Military History by John Lazenby
This book is the only one I know of devoted solely to the first of the three wars between Carthage and Rome, though there are a few (one of which I own) that cover all three wars and even more that cover the Second Punic War. One of the best of the latter is Hannibal’s War, which was also written by John Lazenby. While The First Punic War comes across as somewhat more cursory and less detailed than Hannibal’s War, this is largely a problem of the sources, as Lazenby explains at the beginning. Quite simply, the ancient accounts of the First Punic War that have survived are much more limited in scope than those that deal with the Second Punic War and themselves lack much in the way of detail. In addition, the extant accounts date from well after the war, though some of them may be based on more contemporary sources that haven’t survived. Given these problems, Lazenby did a good job of bringing the ancient sources, supplemented by some archaeological information, together into a clear account of what was the greatest naval war of ancient times (and included one of the largest – if not the largest – naval battles of all time, the Battle of Ecnomus). I might have liked to see a bit more commentary on Lazenby’s part about some of the individuals and events, as he mostly sticks to a bare recitation of the facts. However, given the limited information at his disposal, perhaps he was wiser to refrain from, for instance, commenting much on the generalship of various Carthaginian and Roman leaders. In any case, this is a good account of this important war, though those who prefer more colorful history might be better off with an account of the much better-known Second Punic War. On the other hand, this war seems like fertile ground for a historical novel, since its twenty three years and numerous battles on sea and land, coupled with our limited knowledge of the details, leave a lot of scope for an imaginative writer to work in. Certainly for anyone attempting such a work, Lazenby’s book would be indispensable.
Inversions by Iain M. Banks
As sort of a belated tribute to Iain Banks, I decided to reread one of his novels soon after finishing Matter, despite my general rule of not reading two books by the same author within a short space of time, unless they are part of a connected series. Inversions, if I remember correctly, was actually the first Banks novel I ever read, or at most the second (it’s possible that I read Consider Phlebas or The Player of Games first, since I no longer quite remember the sequence in which I read them).
It was not even obvious at first glance that Inversions had anything to do with science fiction. It is set on a world where the technological level is roughly that of Europe in the late medieval to early Renaissance period. It consists of two interwoven accounts, centered around two individuals who seemingly have only two key characteristics in common; they are both outsiders hailing from very distant lands and they are both extremely competent at what they do. In many other ways, they are opposites, as to a certain extent are the leaders they serve. Vosill, or simply the Doctor, is a physician to the King in a long-established monarchy, while DeWar is the bodyguard of a leader responsible for overthrowing a monarchy. One heals, while the other kills. On the other hand, Vosill’s master seems to be a conservative with a deep belief in the divine right of kings, while DeWar’s comes across as more progressive.
But of course, as is usual in Banks’ novels, there is more going on than meets the eye. For one thing, we learn that Vosill and DeWar may have more in common than anyone around them knows. DeWar relates a story that clues the reader into both of their origins, without laying it out specifically. It also hints that the two of them are opposites in an additional way: they hold opposing beliefs about the right of a technologically superior civilization to interfere in the course of a more primitive one’s development. In some ways, the entire novel is a reflection of these opposing beliefs. Needless to say, there are many other surprises and plot twists in store for the reader, together with Banks’ excellent and often witty prose.
Anyone who has never read any of Banks’ sci-fi novels might enjoy reading this the way I did the first time, without any preconceived notions about the unspoken background of the book and specifically the two chief protagonists. Anyone who wants to do so should stop reading this now and just go out and get the book. For anyone who is more familiar with Banks’ work or doesn’t mind a very minor spoiler, I will conclude by saying that Inversions is a masterfully written look at the Culture, the utopian, galaxy-spanning society Banks created, from the bottom, i.e., from the perspective of one of the less advanced planets that the Culture decides to take a hand in influencing toward a particular path of development. It is all the more clever in that the reader is never specifically told that the Culture is involved, though the clues are fairly obvious to those familiar with it, and even those who aren't will beginning to guess by the end. In any case, it is definitely recommend reading.
The Book of Daniel by E. L. Doctorow
This is a thought-provoking though dark and slightly disturbing book. The book centers on a graduate student named Daniel Lewin and his family. As the book progresses, it slowly becomes clear that Daniel Lewin’s birth parents, the Isaacsons, are based very closely on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, though there are some differences. One obvious one is that the Rosenbergs had two sons, while in the novel, Daniel has a sister. Also, both Daniel and his sister Susan have some serious issues that I don’t think either of the Rosenberg sons had (I once met Robert Meeropol, the younger son of the Rosenbergs, in person and as I read this book I couldn’t help wondering if he had read it and what he thought of Susan’s suicidal tendencies and Daniel’s occasionally abusive behavior to his wife and child). Regardless, the book paints a dark and probably broadly accurate picture of the 1950s anti-Communist paranoia that led to the Rosenbergs’ deaths. The story switches almost at random between first person narration by Daniel and third person. While this doesn’t do much for the book’s readability, it creates an additional parallel with the biblical book of Daniel, which also switches between first and third person, if not as frequently. The book is pretty well-written and tackles some important issues, though it is not an easy read with its occasionally jarring shifts in time and subject as well as narrative point of view.
Tailchaser’s Song by Tad Williams
This was the first published novel by fantasy author Tad Williams. It is an animal fantasy featuring cats. Inevitably it invites comparisons to Richard Adams’ Watership Down, the best known animal fantasy of this type. There are definitely some similarities, such as the tales told by the cats about their mythological figures, which bring to mind the tales of El-ahrairah in Watership Down. However, Williams has his own style, and his picture of the feral cat society is as well drawn in its way as the society of Adams’ rabbits (the cats’ story of the origin and nature of M’an – humans – is particularly clever). The plot is sufficiently engrossing and the characters are appealing. There are some twists, though a few of them are not difficult to guess at. All in all, while the book doesn’t have the depth or complexity of Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy or his standalone novel The War of the Flowers, it is a solid and enjoyable fantasy.
Matter by Iain M. Banks
On one of the flights we took during our trip in June, I picked up an International Herald Tribune in which I came across the headline “Iain Banks, 59, Scottish novelist and sci-fi writer”. So it was that I learned that one of my favorite science fiction authors (and author of several mainstream novels that I also quite liked) had died of gall bladder cancer. Apparently he had only been diagnosed with it a few months earlier, and had learned at the time that it was already too late to stop it. In his public announcement about it, he showed that he hadn’t lost his sense of humor; he also announced that he was marrying his longtime girlfriend, remarking he had asked her if she would “do me the honour of becoming my widow.” He seemed to have come to terms with his fate, though regrettably he succumbed even faster than he was expected to, so he didn’t survive until the release of his final book, which had already been moved up due to his condition.
Iain Banks wrote both mainstream, “literary” fiction and science fiction. He wrote the former under the name “Iain Banks” and the latter as “Iain M. Banks”. Both varieties were popular and critically praised, though he complained that some literary snobs seemed to regard his mainstream novels as his “real” work, even suggesting that he only wrote science fiction as a money-maker to support his mainstream novels. Banks said if anything it was the other way round, as his greatest love was science fiction, even though the mainstream novels often sold better. The science fiction work was popular as well though, and as a number of commentators (such as this one) have remarked, in the Culture, the society at the center of most of his science fiction novels, he created one of the most convincing utopias ever to appear in literature, one that most people would actually want to live in.
Matter was the only Banks novel I already had a copy of that I hadn’t read yet. Published in 2008, it was his first Culture novel in eight years. He said in an interview that he had been worried that he was running out of ideas for his science fiction (he observed that while mainstream fiction can focus on things like relationship, science fiction needs big ideas to make it worth writing), but he was able to get his creative juices flowing by writing the non-Culture science fiction novel The Algebraist, an excellent work certainly not lacking in ideas. Matter is also packed full of ideas, the most impressive being the Shellworlds, though the Nestworld of the alien Morthanveld is also incredibly imaginative. I won’t attempt to describe either here, but while they may strike a physicist as somewhat improbable – they would take astounding amounts of energy to construct, as well as plenty of “unobtainium” (Banks himself has said this is what many of the Culture’s artifacts are made of) – the same could be said of Dyson spheres, and these are at least as cool and rather more complex.
The story revolves around the three children of the king of the Sarl, a people living on one of the layers of the Shellworld Sursamen. The Sarl are at a technological level somewhere between that of the Renaissance and the early Industrial Revolution, though they are aware of more advanced civilizations, including the Culture. Much of the novel focuses on assassinations, political maneuvering, and war among the Sarl, though gradually it becomes apparent that there is a deeper, more ancient mystery at the heart of these machinations, one that draws in the more advanced civilizations, including the Culture. The novel’s final climax – and the similarly explosive (ahem) event that heralds the fast-paced ending section – may seem a little abrupt considering the long set-up, but according to Banks, this was deliberate on his part. I might have liked to have seen a few more things explained and more loose ends tied up, but I’ll also admit there is an artistic neatness to the sudden, dramatic ending, and there is a brief epilogue that provides a partial dénouement.
One word of warning for those who become overly attached to the characters in a novel (semi-spoiler alert): at some point midway through I started speculating on which of the major characters (the three siblings plus two or three others) might end up dying. From his other books, I knew that Banks occasionally kills off major characters even on the “good guy” side, sometimes unexpectedly, though generally not quite as casually as, say, George R. R. Martin. In this case, I started wondering who if anyone among the main characters might not make it. Without giving too much away, I will say that as it turned out, the body count was higher than I expected. In one or two cases, one could reasonably wonder why Banks spent so much time developing a character only to eliminate them the way he does. This feeling is enhanced by the contrast between the lengthy build-up and the fast-paced conclusion, something that some readers have criticized, not entirely without reason. But as I said, Banks did this deliberately (though of course the critics may argue that he was wrong to do so), and there's something to be said for defying the reader's expectations – after all, it isn't as if unexpected death doesn't strike in real life, or that such death necessarily negates all prior meaning in the person's life (a topic that is the theme of the novel I'll discuss next). In any case, Matter has so many interesting ideas that combined with Banks’ literary but very readable and occasionally witty prose, the book is excellent reading despite these issues. As with a book like Infinite Jest (which doesn’t have a proper ending at all), the journey is well worth any disappointment the reader may feel with the destination.
The Bridge of San Luis Rey by Thornton Wilder
This classic novel, which won Thornton Wilder a Pulitzer Prize and has appeared on a number of best novel lists, tells the stories of the five people who died when a (fictional) bridge in Peru collapsed in the 18th century, and of the priest who investigated their lives in hopes of scientifically proving that God had chosen these particular individuals to die on this occasion. Some of the characters are based roughly on real people (for instance, there really was a famous actress in 18th century Peru named Micaela Villegas who was known as La Perricholi and was the mistress of the Viceroy), but while Wilder’s depiction of 18th century Peru seems very true to life, his primary interest is not to relate actual history, but to explore deeper questions. According to Wilder himself, one of his inspirations was Luke 13:4-5, in which Jesus ask rhetorically whether the people who died in the collapse of a tower in Jerusalem were guiltier than anyone else, and concludes that they were not. Wilder uses his novel to pose a similar question about what gives a life meaning. But, as he explained afterward, the book is not meant to actually answer these questions, just to state them clearly. The result is a thought-provoking meditation on human existence. Wilder’s prose is clear and very readable, which together with the relative shortness of the book (just over a hundred pages) makes this one of the most accessible classic novels around.
Beowulf (translated by Burton Raffel)
Beowulf, written – or composed, as it was probably originally an oral work rather than a written one – by an unknown author sometime between 700 and 1000 CE, is the most famous extant work in Old English (also known as Anglo-Saxon). This modern translation is surprisingly readable. This is probably helped by the poet’s digressions being shorter and less frequent than I recall Virgil’s being (it’s been longer since I’ve read either of Homer’s epic poems, so I can’t remember how often he went off on tangents), not to mention the relatively short length of the poem (it’s just under a hundred pages in the volume I have).
One interesting aspect of the poem is that in several cases where the poet mentions a woman who is the daughter, mother or wife of a male character, he doesn’t give their name (Beowulf’s mother is one such example). This would seem to hint that women were considered unimportant. On the other hand, a couple of women do get named, such as Hrothgar’s queen’s Welthow and Higlac’s queen Higd, and are described quite favorably. Welthow is even given several speeches. Another interesting thing about the poem is that it is obvious that it was a major inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien’s work, and even for fantasy role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. Of course, Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon and wrote scholarly works on Beowulf, so it is not really surprising that it would have influenced him, but it’s still striking how much of it will seem familiar to readers of The Lord of the Rings (such as the references to kings as “ring-givers”) or to D&D players (Beowulf’s search for and battle against Grendel’s mother in an underground lair sounds very much like a D&D adventure). So not only is Beowulf a must-read for those interested in the history of English literature or in the societies of the medieval Viking peoples, it also holds considerable interest for fans of fantasy and even role-playing gamers.
The Grand Tour: A Traveler’s Guide to the Solar System by Ron Miller and William K. Hartmann
I recently finished reading through the third edition of this book (published 2005), an updated and expanded edition of a book I first acquired as a boy in the early 1980s, when it was one of my favorite astronomy books. The approach taken by the authors is different from the standard way of examining the Solar System starting with Mercury and traveling outward. Instead, they look at the planets, satellites, asteroids and other bodies in the Solar System (other than the Sun itself) beginning with the largest, the gas giant Jupiter, and proceeding in order of size. Thus Saturn is next, followed by Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Venus, Mars, Jupiter’s moon Ganymede, Saturn’s moon Titan, Mercury, and so forth. Though there are quite a few photos taken by space probes or the Hubble Space Telescope, most of the illustrations are artwork and paintings by the authors, showing imaginary but highly realistic views of the various Solar System bodies. While Miller did the majority of the art, Hartmann, who is also a professional astronomer, did a substantial amount as well. Both also shared writing duties. In the course of the book they occasionally go off on short diatribes about ignorant people back on Earth, such as “conservative ideologues” who attack the science of climate change or the contrast between the empirical science that allowed astronomers to predict the tidal heating of Io and the claims of “religious fundamentalists and mystics” like self-proclaimed astral travelers and so-called creation scientists. But these asides are quite brief, not to mention being correct, so the vast majority of the book is filled with clear descriptions of the various planets and other objects, and those incredible illustrations. While it may be that no human alive today – or even in the far future – will actually be able to stand on most of these bodies and see the literally otherworldly vistas they offer, through Miller and Hartmann’s work we can at least get a good idea of what it would be like to do so.
The First Punic War: A Military History by John Lazenby
This book is the only one I know of devoted solely to the first of the three wars between Carthage and Rome, though there are a few (one of which I own) that cover all three wars and even more that cover the Second Punic War. One of the best of the latter is Hannibal’s War, which was also written by John Lazenby. While The First Punic War comes across as somewhat more cursory and less detailed than Hannibal’s War, this is largely a problem of the sources, as Lazenby explains at the beginning. Quite simply, the ancient accounts of the First Punic War that have survived are much more limited in scope than those that deal with the Second Punic War and themselves lack much in the way of detail. In addition, the extant accounts date from well after the war, though some of them may be based on more contemporary sources that haven’t survived. Given these problems, Lazenby did a good job of bringing the ancient sources, supplemented by some archaeological information, together into a clear account of what was the greatest naval war of ancient times (and included one of the largest – if not the largest – naval battles of all time, the Battle of Ecnomus). I might have liked to see a bit more commentary on Lazenby’s part about some of the individuals and events, as he mostly sticks to a bare recitation of the facts. However, given the limited information at his disposal, perhaps he was wiser to refrain from, for instance, commenting much on the generalship of various Carthaginian and Roman leaders. In any case, this is a good account of this important war, though those who prefer more colorful history might be better off with an account of the much better-known Second Punic War. On the other hand, this war seems like fertile ground for a historical novel, since its twenty three years and numerous battles on sea and land, coupled with our limited knowledge of the details, leave a lot of scope for an imaginative writer to work in. Certainly for anyone attempting such a work, Lazenby’s book would be indispensable.
Inversions by Iain M. Banks
As sort of a belated tribute to Iain Banks, I decided to reread one of his novels soon after finishing Matter, despite my general rule of not reading two books by the same author within a short space of time, unless they are part of a connected series. Inversions, if I remember correctly, was actually the first Banks novel I ever read, or at most the second (it’s possible that I read Consider Phlebas or The Player of Games first, since I no longer quite remember the sequence in which I read them).
It was not even obvious at first glance that Inversions had anything to do with science fiction. It is set on a world where the technological level is roughly that of Europe in the late medieval to early Renaissance period. It consists of two interwoven accounts, centered around two individuals who seemingly have only two key characteristics in common; they are both outsiders hailing from very distant lands and they are both extremely competent at what they do. In many other ways, they are opposites, as to a certain extent are the leaders they serve. Vosill, or simply the Doctor, is a physician to the King in a long-established monarchy, while DeWar is the bodyguard of a leader responsible for overthrowing a monarchy. One heals, while the other kills. On the other hand, Vosill’s master seems to be a conservative with a deep belief in the divine right of kings, while DeWar’s comes across as more progressive.
But of course, as is usual in Banks’ novels, there is more going on than meets the eye. For one thing, we learn that Vosill and DeWar may have more in common than anyone around them knows. DeWar relates a story that clues the reader into both of their origins, without laying it out specifically. It also hints that the two of them are opposites in an additional way: they hold opposing beliefs about the right of a technologically superior civilization to interfere in the course of a more primitive one’s development. In some ways, the entire novel is a reflection of these opposing beliefs. Needless to say, there are many other surprises and plot twists in store for the reader, together with Banks’ excellent and often witty prose.
Anyone who has never read any of Banks’ sci-fi novels might enjoy reading this the way I did the first time, without any preconceived notions about the unspoken background of the book and specifically the two chief protagonists. Anyone who wants to do so should stop reading this now and just go out and get the book. For anyone who is more familiar with Banks’ work or doesn’t mind a very minor spoiler, I will conclude by saying that Inversions is a masterfully written look at the Culture, the utopian, galaxy-spanning society Banks created, from the bottom, i.e., from the perspective of one of the less advanced planets that the Culture decides to take a hand in influencing toward a particular path of development. It is all the more clever in that the reader is never specifically told that the Culture is involved, though the clues are fairly obvious to those familiar with it, and even those who aren't will beginning to guess by the end. In any case, it is definitely recommend reading.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Factual Versus “Balanced”: The L.A. Times and Climate Change Deniers
A few weeks ago, the Letters Editor for the L.A. Times wrote an explanation of why letters repeating a falsehood about the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) did not get printed in their paper. He noted: “Letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there’s no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.” Not surprisingly, the parenthetical example of letters that would not be printed because they were untrue had climate change deniers frothing at the mouth. The editor made a response to their criticism in which he concluded: “Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying 'there’s no sign humans have caused climate change' is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
It seems that in most news reports nowadays journalists bend over backwards to be balanced by presenting both sides of any argument or controversy. While this may be the proper approach in many situations, there is often a difference between being "balanced" and being objective. Simply put, in many debates to give both sides equal time is to create a false equivalence between an argument based on facts and one based on falsehoods. When that happens, the media is not doing its job of informing the public; if anything it is confusing it. Admittedly, there are some "debates" where one side is so blatantly spouting nonsense that most media sources will not attempt to be "balanced". For example, only extreme right wing news sources would present assertions that Barack Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya as anything other than false. But many of them do allow those that assert that climate change is unrelated to human activity or even that it is not occurring at all equal time. But in reality, while it is possible to debate how much the climate is changing and to what degree humans are responsible, the L.A. Times editor is absolutely correct to say that the statement that there's no sign (i.e., evidence) humans have caused climate change is factually inaccurate. There is plenty of such evidence, no matter how much some people may like to deny it.
Climate change is not the only issue that suffers from such efforts by the media to be "balanced". For example, as with the original issue that the L.A. Times editor was discussing, many right-wing falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act have been printed unchallenged by the media. Likewise, implications that Social Security is in part responsible for the US government budget deficit are often not called out for the untruths that they are. Another example that irritates me is when articles about Tibet will say something like "China says that Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries, but Tibetans say it was independent for much of that time". If the journalists would bother to do a little historical research, they'd know that what the Tibetans say is true and what the Chinese government says is false. Similar example appear in articles about other disputes that involve history. While in some cases there really is room for interpretation, in others one side's claims are simply false and should be treated as such.
Since the L.A. Times case involves letters to the editor, some right wingers have called the paper's editorial position a suppression of freedom of speech. This is absurd. Again, we are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about facts. If someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, or that the so-called face on Mars is an artificial construct, or that aliens crash-landed in Roswell, or that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, why would any self-respecting newspaper print it? Those who really want to hear arguments based on blatant falsehoods can find plenty on the Internet or on shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But, as I noted earlier, the real media's main purpose is, or at least ought to be, to inform the public, which in turn allows the latter to develop informed opinions about important issues. At least in the case of climate change, this move by the L.A. Times is a small step in the right direction, and I'd encourage people to sign this petition urging other newspapers to follow suit. Only a public well informed as to the actual facts, rather than just opinions of varying reasonableness, can choose the leaders and policies needed to solve the important problems we face.
It seems that in most news reports nowadays journalists bend over backwards to be balanced by presenting both sides of any argument or controversy. While this may be the proper approach in many situations, there is often a difference between being "balanced" and being objective. Simply put, in many debates to give both sides equal time is to create a false equivalence between an argument based on facts and one based on falsehoods. When that happens, the media is not doing its job of informing the public; if anything it is confusing it. Admittedly, there are some "debates" where one side is so blatantly spouting nonsense that most media sources will not attempt to be "balanced". For example, only extreme right wing news sources would present assertions that Barack Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya as anything other than false. But many of them do allow those that assert that climate change is unrelated to human activity or even that it is not occurring at all equal time. But in reality, while it is possible to debate how much the climate is changing and to what degree humans are responsible, the L.A. Times editor is absolutely correct to say that the statement that there's no sign (i.e., evidence) humans have caused climate change is factually inaccurate. There is plenty of such evidence, no matter how much some people may like to deny it.
Climate change is not the only issue that suffers from such efforts by the media to be "balanced". For example, as with the original issue that the L.A. Times editor was discussing, many right-wing falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act have been printed unchallenged by the media. Likewise, implications that Social Security is in part responsible for the US government budget deficit are often not called out for the untruths that they are. Another example that irritates me is when articles about Tibet will say something like "China says that Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries, but Tibetans say it was independent for much of that time". If the journalists would bother to do a little historical research, they'd know that what the Tibetans say is true and what the Chinese government says is false. Similar example appear in articles about other disputes that involve history. While in some cases there really is room for interpretation, in others one side's claims are simply false and should be treated as such.
Since the L.A. Times case involves letters to the editor, some right wingers have called the paper's editorial position a suppression of freedom of speech. This is absurd. Again, we are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about facts. If someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, or that the so-called face on Mars is an artificial construct, or that aliens crash-landed in Roswell, or that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, why would any self-respecting newspaper print it? Those who really want to hear arguments based on blatant falsehoods can find plenty on the Internet or on shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But, as I noted earlier, the real media's main purpose is, or at least ought to be, to inform the public, which in turn allows the latter to develop informed opinions about important issues. At least in the case of climate change, this move by the L.A. Times is a small step in the right direction, and I'd encourage people to sign this petition urging other newspapers to follow suit. Only a public well informed as to the actual facts, rather than just opinions of varying reasonableness, can choose the leaders and policies needed to solve the important problems we face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
