Today is February 28, which is a holiday here in Taiwan. It commemorates the uprising against the KMT government that took place in 1947. The KMT, which at the time still controlled much of China (though it was soon to lose it to the Communists in the renewed civil war), had only taken over Taiwan in 1945, after the Japanese surrender to the US-led Allies at the end of World War II, under which they were compelled to surrender their possessions outside Japan. Though most Taiwanese initially welcomed the KMT, they soon proved to be corrupt and often treated the Taiwanese as if they were all untrustworthy. Resentment built up, and when an altercation on the evening of February 27, 1947 resulted in a police officer shooting and killing a local, a mass protest began the next day. More shootings by the government turned it into a full scale uprising (unfortunately, some innocent "mainlanders", i.e., people from China, were attacked in the process). Many local KMT governments around the island were forced out and local people set up self-governing councils. The KMT initially promised to meet many of the Taiwanese people's demands, but within a few weeks, Chiang Kai-shek ordered troops from the mainland to be sent over. They violently suppressed the rebellion, slaughtering large numbers of Taiwanese. During the subsequent White Terror period, which continued after Chiang and the rest of the KMT government was forced to flee to Taiwan from China after they were defeated by the Communists), many more people were arrested and executed, often due to accusations of involvement in the 1947 uprising, and the uprising became a forbidden topic. Only many decades later, after Taiwan democratized, could the incident be freely discussed. The government issued an apology and made February 28 a holiday, but it never made a serious attempt to investigate the incident to reveal which individuals were responsible for the atrocities that took place. This failure to secure real justice through finding out the truth means that the incident is still a divisive issue. This is yet another example of the importance of finding out and teaching the true historical facts, as I discussed recently.
Coincidentally, while in Taiwan we look back to a past uprising against the government, a more successful uprising took place just this past week in the Ukraine, with the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovich being forced to flee and the pro-European forces taking over. This has to be counted as a good thing, since both the opposition and the European Union that they lean toward are more progressive than Yanukovich and his autocratic Russian ally Putin. Of course it must be recognized that there were some extremists among the protestors and that the opposition politicians are not without their faults, though it seems unlikely that they are as corrupt as Yanukovich. In any case, it is perhaps telling that Yanukovich's attempts to violently suppress the protests ultimately caused even many in his own party to abandon him. On the other hand, the crisis is not over, not least because some areas in the eastern part of Ukraine, particularly the Crimea, are pro-Russian. Personally, I think Ukraine should at least consider letting the people of the Crimea vote on whether they want to stay in Ukraine or join Russia (rejoin, really, as the area was part of Russia prior to the 1950s). I don't think any national borders should be considered inviolate, though I realize that if every little area was allowed to vote separately on which side to join it could result in a rather messy map, not only in this situation but in other similar ones. In any case, we can only hope that the crisis is solved peacefully and results in an overall reduction in autocracy, corruption and human rights violations in the region – in other words, that the results are rather different from those of Taiwan's February 28 uprising.
On a completely different topic, I have to mention another exciting news item: the recent announcement of the discovery of over 700 new planets orbiting stars other than the Sun. While there don't seem to be any exact analogues of Earth – that is, planets the size of Earth orbiting at a similar distance from their star – in this batch of planets (the discovery methods and our available technology still tend to favor planets that are very close to their stars, very large or both), there are many Earth-sized planets orbiting close in to their stars and a few larger planets that may be in their stars' habitable zones. Taking into consideration that these planets were found in a search area that is a tiny fraction of the whole galaxy and that the search methods used could only discover planets whose orbits are edge on toward us, the discovery of such a large number means that there is a vast population of planets out there in the galaxy, and there are bound to be quite a few Earth twins. As I have noted in the past, with sufficient effort and a bit of luck, we may find such a planet in the next few decades.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Tibetan Independence Day and Truth in History
On February 13, many Tibetans celebrated Tibetan Independence Day, which commemorates the Tibetan Proclamation of Independence made on February 13, 1913. Of course, Tibet is unfortunately not independent now, since it is occupied by China, a topic I have covered before. But Tibetans use this day as a reminder that their country has a long history of independence, one that dates back long before the proclamation. For instance, this year Tibetan groups commemorated the China-Tibet Peace Treaty signed in 822 CE. At that time Tibet was an empire, one that contested with Tang China for dominance in the Tarim Basin area (today East Turkestan, or, as China calls it, Xinjiang) and often won. The Tibetans even managed to sack the Chinese capital of Chang'an (present day Xi'an) at one point. Though the Tibetan empire collapsed in the 9th century, Tibet remained independent, if not always united, for most of the subsequent centuries, only succumbing to outside rule for two periods before the present, one being under the Mongols in the 13th to 14th century and the other being under the Manchu (China's Qing dynasty) from the 18th to the early 20th century (the Proclamation of Independence was made following the collapse of the Qing dynasty, which ended their rule in Tibet as it did in places such as Mongolia).
But of course China's version of this history is rather different. First they treat the Mongols, who conquered China at the same time as they did Tibet and set up what in Chinese history is known as the Yuan dynasty, as a Chinese regime, which they clearly were not, and then they claim that China ruled Tibet from that time on, even though the native Chinese Ming dynasty (1368-1644) exercised no control over Tibet, nor did the Republic of China that followed the Qing dynasty and preceded the present-day People's Republic of China. They constantly downplay, ignore or flat-out deny Tibet's history of independence. As a student of history and a strong believer in getting the facts right, I find these attempts to distort history infuriating. And Tibet is not the only area where China distorts history. Just yesterday I saw a news report in which China demanded that the US "respect historical facts" with regard to the East and South China Seas, presumably a reference to Chinese claims that islands in these regions were historically under Chinese rule. But, as I have noted before, these "facts" are in fact highly dubious, as there is no way any nation can make a meaningful historical claim to any of these islands, all of which are uninhabited, that goes back before the 19th century at the earliest. China's version of the history of Taiwan and its relationship to China is similarly full of omissions, inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. China also insists on a questionable view of its internal history, to the point of hysterically attacking contrary views of the Boxer Rebellion and the Long March, even when the evidence is on the side of the challengers.
Regrettably, China is not the only place where false accounts of history are common. Here in Taiwan, the KMT government has recently revised the school curriculum to conform to a more Sinocentric view of Taiwanese history, for instance by reverting to the loaded term "Japanese occupation" rather than the neutral "Japanese rule" to describe the period from 1895 to 1945. The other day at the lantern show there was a display that characterized Zheng Chenggong as an "ethnic hero", presumably in line with the idea that he "reclaimed" Taiwan from the Dutch, "restoring" Chinese rule. This ignores the fact that China had never actually ruled Taiwan, and while Zheng may have used ethnically-based propaganda, his motives for forcing out the Dutch had much more to do with establishing a base for his fight against the newly established Qing dynasty of the Manchus than any broad nationalistic interests. Elsewhere in Asia, last I heard, Japan was also still failing to present its early 20th century history with complete accuracy in textbooks, as it downplayed or ignored Japanese atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing or the widespread use of "comfort women". Indeed nationalists in just about every country distort their history to make it support chauvinistic claims, and it is common for groups on one side or the other of a contemporary political dispute to use history in their support, even if they have to falsify it. For example, in the US it is common for many on the right to claim that the country was established as an explicitly Christian nation, even though any reading of the Constitution and the writings of the most prominent founders clearly shows that that is not true.
Inaccurate accounts of history are not limited to politics. For example, numerous books, movies and plays portray history inaccurately, a phenomenon that has been repeated throughout history (even Shakespeare's plays, for all their literary merit, often get the history completely wrong). Some amount to little more than political propaganda, though in many cases, such as Hollywood films with historical settings, the rewriting of history is done for commercial reasons, even though in many cases there seems little or no justification for it, and a more historically accurate film could have been just as entertaining. But at least most of these entertainment products aren't presented as if they paint a historically accurate picture. Depending on the events they portray and how widespread their interpretations become, the harm most of them cause tends to be limited. In contrast, inaccurate views of history that are presented as the truth can cause great damage. For example, the false, rabidly nationalistic history that China has spoon fed its people on will create problems throughout East Asia for years to come, as even a democratic China would be full of people who think Tibet, Taiwan, and the South China Sea are rightfully Chinese. Of course I can't claim that all of my own historical knowledge is 100% accurate, or that I am free from bias, but even when discussing topics where I have fairly strong opinions, I make an effort to be as historically accurate as I can, even when some of the facts don't bolster my arguments. Needless to say, on all such topics, I think the preponderance of evidence supports whatever view I have taken, but I try to remain open to contrary evidence, and I have actually altered my former opinions of some historical events upon learning new things about them. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to make the same effort to be as objective as possible. While my more immediate personal goal is to produce a history of Taiwanese popular music, in part to correct some relatively innocuous misstatements of fact that have appeared in other books and articles, I also consider it important to counter false views of political history wherever they appear, though in many cases they are too deeply ingrained for those who believe them to change their views.
But of course China's version of this history is rather different. First they treat the Mongols, who conquered China at the same time as they did Tibet and set up what in Chinese history is known as the Yuan dynasty, as a Chinese regime, which they clearly were not, and then they claim that China ruled Tibet from that time on, even though the native Chinese Ming dynasty (1368-1644) exercised no control over Tibet, nor did the Republic of China that followed the Qing dynasty and preceded the present-day People's Republic of China. They constantly downplay, ignore or flat-out deny Tibet's history of independence. As a student of history and a strong believer in getting the facts right, I find these attempts to distort history infuriating. And Tibet is not the only area where China distorts history. Just yesterday I saw a news report in which China demanded that the US "respect historical facts" with regard to the East and South China Seas, presumably a reference to Chinese claims that islands in these regions were historically under Chinese rule. But, as I have noted before, these "facts" are in fact highly dubious, as there is no way any nation can make a meaningful historical claim to any of these islands, all of which are uninhabited, that goes back before the 19th century at the earliest. China's version of the history of Taiwan and its relationship to China is similarly full of omissions, inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. China also insists on a questionable view of its internal history, to the point of hysterically attacking contrary views of the Boxer Rebellion and the Long March, even when the evidence is on the side of the challengers.
Regrettably, China is not the only place where false accounts of history are common. Here in Taiwan, the KMT government has recently revised the school curriculum to conform to a more Sinocentric view of Taiwanese history, for instance by reverting to the loaded term "Japanese occupation" rather than the neutral "Japanese rule" to describe the period from 1895 to 1945. The other day at the lantern show there was a display that characterized Zheng Chenggong as an "ethnic hero", presumably in line with the idea that he "reclaimed" Taiwan from the Dutch, "restoring" Chinese rule. This ignores the fact that China had never actually ruled Taiwan, and while Zheng may have used ethnically-based propaganda, his motives for forcing out the Dutch had much more to do with establishing a base for his fight against the newly established Qing dynasty of the Manchus than any broad nationalistic interests. Elsewhere in Asia, last I heard, Japan was also still failing to present its early 20th century history with complete accuracy in textbooks, as it downplayed or ignored Japanese atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing or the widespread use of "comfort women". Indeed nationalists in just about every country distort their history to make it support chauvinistic claims, and it is common for groups on one side or the other of a contemporary political dispute to use history in their support, even if they have to falsify it. For example, in the US it is common for many on the right to claim that the country was established as an explicitly Christian nation, even though any reading of the Constitution and the writings of the most prominent founders clearly shows that that is not true.
Inaccurate accounts of history are not limited to politics. For example, numerous books, movies and plays portray history inaccurately, a phenomenon that has been repeated throughout history (even Shakespeare's plays, for all their literary merit, often get the history completely wrong). Some amount to little more than political propaganda, though in many cases, such as Hollywood films with historical settings, the rewriting of history is done for commercial reasons, even though in many cases there seems little or no justification for it, and a more historically accurate film could have been just as entertaining. But at least most of these entertainment products aren't presented as if they paint a historically accurate picture. Depending on the events they portray and how widespread their interpretations become, the harm most of them cause tends to be limited. In contrast, inaccurate views of history that are presented as the truth can cause great damage. For example, the false, rabidly nationalistic history that China has spoon fed its people on will create problems throughout East Asia for years to come, as even a democratic China would be full of people who think Tibet, Taiwan, and the South China Sea are rightfully Chinese. Of course I can't claim that all of my own historical knowledge is 100% accurate, or that I am free from bias, but even when discussing topics where I have fairly strong opinions, I make an effort to be as historically accurate as I can, even when some of the facts don't bolster my arguments. Needless to say, on all such topics, I think the preponderance of evidence supports whatever view I have taken, but I try to remain open to contrary evidence, and I have actually altered my former opinions of some historical events upon learning new things about them. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to make the same effort to be as objective as possible. While my more immediate personal goal is to produce a history of Taiwanese popular music, in part to correct some relatively innocuous misstatements of fact that have appeared in other books and articles, I also consider it important to counter false views of political history wherever they appear, though in many cases they are too deeply ingrained for those who believe them to change their views.
Friday, January 31, 2014
The Problem of Economic Inequality
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).
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).
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
