Bernie or Hillary?

To the surprise of those voters, media people and pundits who weren’t paying attention, the race for the Democratic nomination for US President is shaping up to be a real contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. For the most part, the American media spent the vast majority of its time paying attention to the circus that is the Republican race, and so they failed to notice the enthusiasm for Sanders, who for months was drawing crowds that outnumbered those going to see the annoying narcissist leading the Republican race, who got the vast majority of the attention on most media. It seems like it was only in the last month or so that the media noticed that Sanders was presenting a serious challenge to Clinton. Now that the primaries have actually started, it is clear that Sanders has a good shot at the nomination. But for those of us who want to see some progress made in making both the US and the world a better place, the question remains: which of the two Democratic candidates is the best choice? I’ve touched on this question a few times in the past, back when Martin O’Malley was still in the race (though always a distant third), but now that it’s crunch time, it’s worth revisiting it in some detail. The truth is, I am still vacillating, and what follows is a rough summary of some of the thoughts that are behind my indecisiveness.

In many ways, Sanders is clearly the most attractive candidate, so it’s not surprising that his support among the most progressive voters has been overwhelmingly stronger than Clinton’s. Sanders has focused on economic inequality and the numerous issues related to it, such as money in politics, out-of-control big banks, tax policies that favor the rich, racial issues, immigration and more. He is openly calling for a political revolution to change America’s course, and considering how far down the road toward becoming a corporate plutocracy the US has gone, I have to agree with him. Clinton, for the most part, gives the impression that she would be content with tinkering with the system, which is unlikely to be sufficient. Sanders’ positions on numerous issues are decidedly more progressive than Clinton’s. While most of what she has said during the campaign on climate change, immigration, the TPP and so forth has been good, Sanders has mostly been better, and Clinton has even made a few really unfortunate remarks, such as her defense of deportations of undocumented immigrants by the Obama administration. Her attacks on Sanders for pushing a single-payer health care system and for acknowledging that in addition to dramatically raising taxes on the rich he may also raise taxes on ordinary Americans (if those taxes can really make it possible for the US to create a Scandinavian-style social support system, then Americans should be happy to pay them). But the main distinction is that Sanders recognizes that radical change is needed in many areas, and for the most part Clinton does not.

So does all the above mean I’m all out for Sanders? Not necessarily. While I have many reasons for liking Sanders better, I also have reasons for preferring Hillary Clinton. Let’s start with the one that is the more obviously superficial: the fact that Hillary is a woman. I do think it’s about time the US elected a female president, and as great as Bernie is, he’s yet another white male. At least when the contest was between Obama and Clinton, we knew that whoever won would be breaking new ground. This wouldn’t be as obviously the case with Sanders, even though he would be the first Jewish president and the first openly socialist president. Those would be great steps forward too, but it wouldn’t have the dramatic impact of electing the first woman to the office. Of course, I can imagine all the Sanders supporters sharpening their penknives, metaphorically speaking, at the above, so let be clear here: if all Hillary had going for her was that she was female, there is no way that I’d even think about supporting her over Sanders. That would be like saying I’d be happy to see someone like Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin (shudder) as president. Unlike awful candidates like those, Hillary Clinton has a lot to recommend her, and the fact that she's female is merely a bonus.

On the issues, while the positions Clinton has taken are overall not quite as good as those taken by Sanders, she is still for the most part pretty good. Her stances on issues like economic inequality, climate change, election finance reform, social programs, immigration, and education range from acceptable to excellent. On at least one issue, she is actually noticeably better than Sanders: gun control. While Sanders has also spoken out on the need to do something about gun violence, a few of his past votes on the issue are problematic and his attempts to explain them have been in my view inadequate. As at least one commentator pointed out, his argument that he was simply voting in the interests of his constituents contradicts his basic premise that he is all about principles. Even if voting against gun control measures or to shield gun retailers from lawsuits was what his constituents wanted (it seems a bit much to claim it was actually in their interest to vote that way), then in doing so he was acting like other politicians. Of course no one is perfect, and given Bernie’s good stances on other issues and his current positive rhetoric on this one, a few mistakes are hardly enough to disqualify him as a very good candidate. But then the same logic applies to Hillary, and while she might have made a few more bad votes or taken a few more bad positions than Sanders, the difference is not as great as some make it out to be. In fact, Clinton’s record as a Senator was solidly progressive, by most accounts more so than Barack Obama, a point some of her progressive critics seem to ignore or dismiss. While it is true that she has at times tried to position herself as a centrist and some of her statements and actions seem to be driven by political expedience, even Sanders seems to have been guilty of that on guns, and there are many issues where her progressive convictions seem genuine. One example is issues relating to women and children, something she has been deeply involved in since even before her husband first ran for political office. To take one example, while her critics on the left rightly attack the welfare reforms passed under Bill Clinton’s administration, it’s worth noting that by her own account, which I can’t see any reason to doubt, she pushed behind the scenes to ensure that the welfare reform bill included provisions providing Medicare, food stamps and child care, even telling her husband and his staff she would speak out publicly against the bill if it didn’t provide these protections. While the final bill was still too harsh, it is probably that she helped make it less so with her behind the scenes work.

One of Clinton’s greatest strengths is her overall competence and detailed knowledge of many issues. Indeed, some have observed that the main contrast between Sanders and Clinton is one between inspiration and governance, or to put it another way, between a visionary and a manager. Sanders, as his backers point out, certainly has demonstrated ample governing ability, whether as chief executive during his years as mayor or as a successful legislator in his years in Congress. However, his main message as a presidential candidate has been one of inspiration. Clinton, on the other hand, frequently displays a detailed grasp of the issues, including in many cases fairly precise policy proscriptions. On the other hand, she has more difficulty inspiring people than Sanders or, before him, Obama. But while I think it’s great to have a visionary leader who inspires people, it’s at least equally important to have a fantastically capable manager. While I believe that Bernie is likely to prove quite adept at governing, the person who has most clearly given indications of that capability during the campaign is Hillary. She is also one of the most qualified people ever to run for President in terms of her resume. While she hasn’t actually served as a chief executive, she has been a Senator and a Secretary of State, and she spent eight years in the White House getting as close a look at the job as it is possible to have without actually doing it. Of course, while Bernie’s resume might not have quite as much breadth as her, it is also very good; certainly far, far better than any of the likely Republican nominees.

To be clear about things, I must emphasize that I don’t agree with those who claim Sanders is promising moonbeams and unicorns. Most of his proposals, broadly speaking, are quite realistic, if radical to those in the establishment. For instance, it seems that some of the attacks by left-leaning economists (including Paul Krugman, who in general I highly respect) on a study by another economists of how Sanders’ proposals would affect the economy were not based on actual analysis. Likewise, the claim that Sanders’ health care proposals would cost trillions of dollars are extremely misleading, as most of that would simply be moving money to the public sector from the private sector (which has proved very inefficient at distributing health care in the US). However, the qualifier “broadly speaking” is important. I do get the impression that quite a few of Sanders’ ideas are somewhat lacking in detail and may promise more than they can deliver. For instance, it’s not quite enough to say that countries like Denmark manage to provide universal health care and other broad social benefits like universal day care and so the US should to. The problem is that Denmark and most other democratic socialist countries are a lot smaller and more homogenous than the US, which means that it is a much bigger and more difficult task to provide the same benefits in the latter. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, but it does mean that we have to recognize that it will be immensely difficult and in all probability will take some time. While I personally would be perfectly prepared to have things like my health care radically transformed in a short period of time if I were living in the US, most people instinctively resist radical change, even if it is ultimately in their interests. While I would might prefer to see the radical change Sanders promises, I suspect that Clinton’s approach might actually work better.

One reason a lot of progressives have difficulty with Hillary Clinton is her somewhat hawkish approach to foreign policy. I will admit that I don’t feel quite as strongly about this as many other people do. I agree that her vote on Iraq was a mistake (as she admits herself), as were her other remarks at the time in support of invading Iraq. However, as wrongheaded as it was, that vote alone hardly should be treated as a reason to reject her as a candidate; if I were to reject her for that stupid vote I’d also have to reject Sanders for his vote to give the gun industry immunity from lawsuits. Of course, supporting the Iraq invasion was arguably not Clinton’s only questionable foreign policy decision. In hindsight, intervention in Libya may have been a mistake, though it seems that most people have forgotten that the original impetus for intervening was to stop a potential massacre of opponents and civilians in Benghazi by the Qaddafi regime. The problem is that since Qaddafi was stopped from reaching Benghazi, we don’t know whether such a massacre would have taken place or whether it would have been bad enough to make the current chaos in Libya seem preferable. Since this is unknowable, it’s hard to judge whether the initial intervention was a mistake or not, except to say that I for one would not have wanted to see the West stand by while people were slaughtered in great numbers if it was possible to act to prevent it. Of course later decisions in the course of the intervention, such as escalating it to actively supporting the anti-Qaddafi forces, can and probably should also be criticized, though again it’s hard to know what would have happened if the US had acted differently. In any case, it’s important to keep in mind that the initial US (or rather NATO, as the US played more of a supporting role) intervention took place under completely different circumstances than that in Iraq, and was not made under blatantly false pretenses like the latter was. Ultimately, I share Clinton’s apparent belief that under some circumstances military intervention may be justifiable, though only if we can be fairly sure that it will make things better rather than worse, a difficult thing to ascertain. Perhaps a more disturbing part of Hillary’s record on foreign policy is her acquiescence to the right-wing coup in Honduras, which has directly led to the terrible conditions there today that lead many people, including unaccompanied minors, to flee the country. This makes her comments in support of deportations even harder to excuse. Doing things like touting her friendship for the amoral Henry Kissinger doesn’t help her image as someone who would sacrifice innocents in the name of pragmatism. But then every US leader, including Obama, bears responsibility for at least some cold-hearted foreign policy choices, and I doubt even Sanders could avoid making a few if he is elected. I should also note that another, more specific foreign policy issue for me is which candidate would be more likely to stand up to China over Taiwan, Tibet, and other such issues. As a resident of Taiwan, I’d be reluctant to vote for anyone who seemed likely to stand aside if China began to act more aggressively. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard much specific on this from either Sanders or Clinton, though the latter seems a little more likely to be a reliable ally for my country of residence (in her autobiography, she mentions confronting Chinese President Jiang Zemin over Tibet).

Another big issue for many is Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. I do find these somewhat troubling, though I think we should keep in mind that though Wall Street as a whole may be a negative force in the US, it is far from monolithic. Even institutions like Goldman Sachs that are guilty of all sorts of criminal practices are too big and complex to be absolutely evil or good, just like governments or billionaires as a class are not all bad or all good. To be sure, we certainly don’t need a President who will be actively working to promote the interests of Wall Street over those of ordinary Americans, and I agree with Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that if a bank is too big to fail, then it’s too big to exist. But even Hillary agrees that Wall Street needs to be reined in, and I don’t think the fact that she’s taken some money from them proves that she’s totally in their pocket, just that they think it would be worthwhile to have her ear, in part because she is not totally hostile to them. I saw one comment that in general Wall Street is basically neutral toward Clinton, and I suspect that’s the case in reverse as well. I think if she is elected it will still be possible to push her to fulfill her own comments on the need to put some restraints on the big banks. That said, this is one of the issues that pushes me more towards Sanders, along with Clinton’s ties to other problematic industries and companies, like Monsanto – though at least she has announced that she will not take any more contributions from, for example, the for-profit prison industry.

Then there is the vaguer but still commonly raised issue of Hillary’s trustworthiness. However, I think to a large degree this issue is a creation of the American right wing. During the administration of her husband, Bill Clinton, both of them were relentlessly attacked and accused of all kinds of things. Most of these accusations were completely unfounded, but gradually they managed to create an impression of dishonesty on the part of the Clintons that was not truly deserved. That’s not to say that I think Hillary is the most honest person in the world, or even in politics. I recently read her autobiography, and while it was interesting and informative (her writing is not nearly as good as Obama’s, but it’s readable), it was obvious that she was writing with her political future in mind, as much of it seemed rather cautious and diplomatic (though she didn’t bother to conceal her dislike for people like Newt Gingrich and of course the awful Kenneth Starr). However, I don’t think she is any more or less trustworthy than most politicians, and she’s probably better than a lot of them. I think that this image of her as particularly untrustworthy stems from a combination of the absurdly high level of scrutiny she has been subjected to, some degree of sexism (which helped drive at least some of the scrutiny she got when she first got onto the national stage), and her own lack of the kind of natural charisma that allows people like her husband to get away with minor (or even major) failings with their popularity intact. With the exception of Obama, few people in American politics have had the amount of vitriol aimed at them as has Hillary Clinton, so it is inevitable that some of it has made an impression. Whether that impression is accurate is another question.

In fact, this brings up another issue that has me vacillating between the candidates, and that is the attitudes of some of their supporters. The candidates themselves have been mostly polite to each other, though as the race has heated up the rhetoric has too. But this is even more obvious when one looks at what some of their supporters have been saying. A number of people on Clinton’s side have made ridiculous remarks about Sanders, his positions or his supporters, and every time I hear one it makes me more inclined to support Sanders. But when it comes to grassroots supporters, it is the Sanders supporters who show the greatest hostility toward their candidate’s opponent. Some of them are as bad in their anti-Hillary rants as the right wing. Though of course it isn’t fair to judge anyone by the worst of their supporters, the hostility many Sanders supporters display toward Clinton doesn’t particularly make me want to be on their side, and I find it particularly irresponsible considering that attacks on either candidate could end up hurting them in the general election, which is something we absolutely can’t afford, considering the alternatives. Of course Hillary’s surrogates would do well to remember this too. But it’s among Sanders supporters that I tend to see an unhealthy degree of ideological self-righteousness. While I understand the tendency to treat all the people we profoundly disagree with as either stupid or evil or both, as I am subject to it myself, I think that a certain degree of flexibility, tolerance, and ability to compromise (not with diehard right wing ideologues, perhaps, but with everyone else – and even possibly with them on rare issues) is necessary to make real progress.

I’ll admit that another factor related to the above is my own inclination to play devil’s advocate. Whenever Clinton supporters call Sanders a fringe candidate or claim his proposals are all unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky ideas, that makes me lean towards Sanders. On the other hand, when Sanders supporters attack Clinton as a tool of Wall Street or just an unprincipled person who is only interested in power, that makes me what to support her. Overall, the apparent tendency for people in progressive groups like Move On, the Working People’s Party, and so forth to value the idealistic visions of Sanders over the practical governing skills of Clinton makes me want to throw my support to her, just to balance things out. The truth is, I think both types of approach are equally valuable, and if they could be combined, that’s when we will really see things happen. Commentator Michael Kazin makes a similar point in his part (titled “Both/And”) of a set of short essays by several progressives in the Nation about the definition of “progressive” and how well Clinton and Sanders fit it, stating that in his view Clinton should be considered a liberal, someone who works within the system in a pragmatic manner to create gradual change, whereas Sanders is a leftist, someone pushes for radical change from the outside. When both types work together, progress is most likely to be made (incidentally, some of the comments at the end of the Nation piece are good examples of the purist attitude of some Sanders supporters).

One final consideration in deciding which candidate to support for the Democratic nomination is electability. For a long time, Hillary Clinton supporters have argued that Bernie Sanders is unelectable in a general election – indeed, her campaign is still making the argument that she is the best candidate to put up against the Republicans. Among other things, they say that Sanders, as a self-declared democratic socialist, will be considered too extreme by mainstream voters. On the other hand, some Sanders supporters are arguing the reverse, noting that Sanders does better in polls against likely Republican nominees. This argument has gained impetus as it begins to look more likely that, contrary to the expectations of most pundits and against the will of most of the Republican establishment, a certain loud-mouthed, loud-haired, obnoxious, self-promoting billionaire will win the Republican nomination. Of course I’m referring to Donald Trump, who in the past I’ve tried to avoid mentioning Trump by name because I hate giving him yet more of the attention he so obviously craves [Update: Just after posting this I saw John Oliver's latest show, where he also amusingly talked about trying to ignore Trump, until, like a back mole, he became too big to ignore. I like his suggestion that we "make Donald Drumpf again", so I may start referring to him by his ancestral name in the future, when I have to mention him at all]]. But since chances are good that he will actually be the nominee, we’re probably stuck with him (this isn’t to say that the other Republican candidates are any better – Cruz is if anything worse, and Rubio is a cipher whose positions are only moderate by comparison to the extremism of his opponents, where they aren’t identical). In any case, the argument made by Sanders supporters is that Bernie will do better against Trump than Hillary, or even that he’s the only one who can beat him. While I would prefer to pick my candidates solely on their merits, electability is something that can’t be ignored, especially when the potential consequences of a Republican win (regardless of their nominee) would be dire, not just for the US, but for the whole world.

So which side’s arguments about electability are more credible? To some degree, it is impossible to be sure, as attempting to predict the future is a hazardous business. But my feeling is that both sides make some good points, but both exaggerate the electability of their candidate and the difficulties that the other candidate would face. The assertion that Sanders is too much of a fringe candidate for most Americans doesn’t seem terribly convincing to me, as the things he advocates are actually quite popular, for the most part. This is not to say that he might not be defeated by a smear campaign which succeeded in portraying him as more radical (and dangerous) than he is. It should be impossible for any sensible, reasonably well-informed voter to think Sanders is radical, much less dangerous, in comparison to people with truly insane and dangerous ideas like Trump, Cruz or even Rubio. But unfortunately many voters are neither sensible nor well-informed. Nevertheless, I think Sanders would stand a better than even chance of winning in the general election, and this is even truer if voters are able to get an accurate picture of who he is and what he wants to do.

As for Clinton, the main argument against her electability is that, fairly or not (and as I indicated above, I’d say mostly unfairly), she is considered untrustworthy and dishonest by many, and so her negative numbers are high. A more specific argument is that Trump in particular, with his propensity for throwing out insults and vague accusations, would be the worst kind of opponent for Clinton to face, as she’d have to constantly on the defensive against him, given the number of (perceived) scandals she’s been connected with. Sanders, this argument goes, would be much less vulnerable to this kind of shatter-shot attack, given both a lack of material for Trump to work with and Sanders’ ability to stay focused on his message about economic inequality, an area where Trump is more vulnerable. There is something to this argument. However, it does ignore the possibility that other groups might launch attack ads against Sanders painting him as an extremist. Granted, most of the usual right wing billionaire backers of the Republicans (the ones who would be funding such attacks) don’t like Trump much either, but they may still decide he’s the lesser of two evils, despite Charles Koch’s disingenuous claim that he agrees with Sanders about inequality being a problem. I think Clinton might prove more effective than some of her detractors think in fighting back, particularly since her performance in the debates and the Benghazi hearings shows that she can perform quite well in such situations, and as I observed above, she’s already survived decades of partisan mudslinging. Clinton’s supporters also note that many of the possible things that she will be attacked for are already well known to most voters, and so most people who haven’t already taken against her are unlikely to be swayed by attacks on her. On the other hand, Sanders is still unfamiliar to many people, which means not only that his negatives are low but also that the right wing has more room to create a negative impression. This is also a valid argument, though Clinton could still be hurt by constant attacks, and it’s still hard to say how they’d affect Sanders. Overall, I suspect these positives and negatives for both Sanders and Clinton may balance out, so that both are more or less equally electable, though perhaps Sanders might do a bit better against Trump.

I should also point out that I still don’t think Trump has that much of a chance in the general election. Even among Republicans, his support has mostly hovered at between 30% and 40%, though with the narrowing of the field that may change slightly. A lot of other Republicans, including ordinary people as well as establishment figures, don’t like him, and I find it hard to imagine many non-Republicans voting for him, especially women, Latinos or pretty much any other minority group. Even aside from his awful rhetoric, he has an abrasive, frankly annoying personality. And while appearance is not what matters most, I found his attack on Carly Fiorina's appearance (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”) to be highly ironic, as I for one find Trump’s own appearance to be somewhat nausea-inducing (Cruz isn’t much better on this front). But while I’m sure many people share my feelings about Trump and would be just as happy as I would if we never had to see or hear of him again, we probably shouldn’t underestimate the stupidity of other people. Though I don’t think that Sanders is likely to be that much stronger against Trump than Clinton, it’s important that neither take Trump too lightly.

In the final analysis, I remain undecided between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I lean just slightly towards Sanders because I prefer his positions on the majority of issues and I agree with him that the US needs radical change, but I also like her sharpness, competence, and detailed policy positions, qualities that I think are underrated in the style over substance world of modern politics. If Hillary does prevail, I hope it is close enough that she really takes to heart the lesson that Bernie has been teaching: millions of Americans want real, progressive change, and even those who don’t want it will in the end benefit from it. In the next couple of days, following the Super Tuesday primaries, everyone should have a better idea of who is likely to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps Sanders will pull off an upset by winning most of the delegates, or maybe the two will more or less split them. In that case, I’ll probably stay on the sidelines, though something could sway me in one direction or another. If, on the other hand, Hillary wins big, I will look into how to vote in the Global Presidential Primary that the Democrats hold for Americans abroad from March 1 to March 8, and if I do vote in that situation, I’ll almost certainly vote for Bernie, in order to keep the pressure on Hillary. I’d be quite happy to see her as US President, but I want it to be a progressive Hillary who is willing to take on vested interests. I believe that such a Hillary exists, but she needs the courage to come out to take the place of the more cautious, middle-of-the-road Hillary. A strong progressive movement may give her that courage, but if not, then maybe we’d be better off with Bernie as President. In the end, though, even a centrist, somewhat corporate-friendly Hillary would be vastly preferable to any of the Republican candidates, and all people who claim to be progressive, leftists, liberals, or even socialists should remember that when November comes.

A New Planet in Our Solar System?

Astronomy being a long-time interest of mine (as should be obvious by the number of related posts on this blog), I was naturally intrigued by the flurry of news reports on an announcement by astronomers Konstantin Batygin and Michael Brown that their calculations show a large planet (which they rather provocatively are calling "Planet Nine") exists in the outer Solar System, far beyond Pluto and Eris. The proposed planet is believed to orbit between about 200 AU (300 billion km) at perihelion and as much as 1200 AU (1.2 trillion km) at aphelion, with an orbital period of between 10,000 and 20,000 Earth years, a period comparable or even more than that of Sedna, which at around 11,400 Earth years has the longest orbital period of any known large object (for comparison, Pluto takes 248 Earth years to orbit the Sun and Eris takes 558 Earth years). Batygin and Brown estimate that the planet should be about ten times as massive as Earth, putting it between Earth and Neptune (17 Earth masses) in size, making it a super-Earth or more properly a mini-Neptune, a category of planet that has been found in many star systems but is (so far) unknown in our own Solar System.

Some of the initial headlines about this hypothetical planet were a bit exaggerated, to say the least. One even stated that a new planet had been “discovered” even though the article to which headline was attached made it fairly clear that it had only been predicted and is not known for certain to exist. As another article pointed out, despite the famous and impressive prediction and discovery of Neptune, no other prediction of a planet in our Solar System has turned out to be accurate, as even Pluto’s discovery by Clyde Tombaugh while searching for a planet predicted by Percival Lowell turned out to be just a fortunate coincidence. Neptune was discovered due to residuals in the orbit of Uranus, that is to say, Uranus was not moving as it should have been based on the gravitational effects of the Sun and the known planets, meaning that there was something else affecting it. As impressive as the mathematical prediction leading to Neptune’s discovery was, the residuals in that case were fairly substantial, allowing a precise prediction of the unknown planet’s size and position. Attempts to find other planets by similar methods have been based on much slimmer evidence that in many cases was later to shown to be wrong anyway (for example, the problems with Mercury’s orbit which led to predictions of a planet closer to the Sun disappeared when Einsteinian physics was applied, and the apparent remaining problems with Uranus’s orbit that led to predictions of an additional planet beyond Neptune disappeared after estimates of Neptune’s mass were corrected following Voyager 2’s encounter with the planet). In other cases, even at the time the supposed evidence upon which the claims were based was dubious, such as in the case of Nemesis, the claim that the Sun has a distant red dwarf or brown dwarf companion that is causing periodic extinction events on Earth by sending showers of comets toward the Earth from the Oort cloud in the far outer reaches of the Solar System. Many experts doubt the claim that extinctions occur on a regular, periodic basis, and some astronomers have pointed out that an object like the predicted one would have measurable effects on objects closer to the Sun, effects that are clear not happening. Finally, infrared surveys of the Sun’s neighborhood seem to have pretty much ruled out anything of Jupiter-size or greater to a distance far beyond that predicted.

So historically speaking the record for planet predictions, despite the one spectacular success in the case of Neptune, is pretty poor. However, in this case Batygin and Brown do seem to have a slightly stronger case than that made for most previous hypothetical planets. Their prediction is based on the odd grouping of the orbits of half a dozen extremely distant objects, including Sedna. They calculate that it is extremely unlikely that this correlation in orbits would occur by chance. One might argue that we simply haven’t found enough of the objects that may exist in that region of the Solar System to be sure that the correlation holds true for all or even most of them, but then the odds against our first discoveries out of a large population just coincidentally having similar orbits also has to be very small. Another factor perhaps just as strongly in favor is the fact that Batygin and Brown did not start out by looking for evidence of a planet; instead they were originally hoping to disprove a suggestion made by Scott Sheppard and Chad Trujillo that a large, distant planet might be responsible for the orbits of Sedna and similar objects. Instead, their simulations showed the opposite of what they expected. Why do their original intentions matter? Because even scientists can fall prey to confirmation bias. If a scientist starts out hoping to find a planet, they may tend to exaggerate the reliability of the evidence they are using. Since Batygin and Brown, at least by their own account, started out hoping to disprove the idea that there might be a planet, the evidence that changed their minds would have to be at least somewhat more convincing than for someone who was hoping to prove there was a planet.

If this planet exists, it is probably near to aphelion, the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, which would explain why it hasn’t been found yet. If it is of the speculated size, it could possibly be seen in a good amateur telescope near perihelion (when it is closest to the Sun). A planet that bright would have been found long ago, perhaps by Clyde Tombaugh, who covered much of the sky after finding Pluto. But if this planet is at aphelion, its last perihelion was at least 5,000 years ago, long before telescopes were invented. At its probable current distance, it would be much harder to see and it may be lost among the stars of the Milky Way. Nevertheless, a determined search will probably find it – if it is there.

Of course, even if the planet exists and is actually spotted, it won’t resolve the controversy over how many planets there are in the Solar System. Brown takes what I must say (despite my great respect for his work in planetary astronomy) is somewhat juvenile pride in being the “Pluto killer”, since it was his discovery of Eris that led to the “demotion” of Pluto from full planetary status. But as I have discussed in the past, a good case can be made for a definition of “planet” that includes Pluto, Charon, Eris and a few other of the larger trans-Neptunian objects, or alternatively for saying that while Pluto et al may be called “dwarf planets”, that is still a kind of planet. As there are still many, including at least some astronomers, who still consider Pluto (and presumably the similarly sized Eris) a planet, the term “Planet Nine” given by Batygin and Brown to their hypothetical planet is, as I noted at the beginning, somewhat provocative. Nevertheless, if the planet really turns up, it will be a fascinating addition to our Solar System, even though it may be many decades before we are able to explore it more closely, considering how incredibly far away it is, even in comparison with Pluto.

Taiwan Election Recap: A New Direction for Taiwan

This past weekend, Taiwan held a general election for the presidency and the legislature. As in the US, Taiwanese presidents are elected for four year terms and are limited to two terms, though in Taiwan’s case both democratic elections for president and limitations on the president’s time in power are relatively new phenomenon, as the first popular election for president was only held in 1996 and the dictator Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo both held the presidency for life, the former having previously been the president of China before he and his followers were forced to flee to Taiwan after being defeated by the Communists. Taiwan has been ruled by the Chiangs’ party, the Kuomintang (KMT; Guomingdang in Hanyu pinyin) since the end of Japanese rule in 1945, except for the eight year period from 2000 to 2008, when Chen Shuibian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was president. Even during that time, the KMT maintained a substantial majority in the legislature (not to mention the fact that most of the bureaucracy and military leadership consisted of KMT loyalists), which put severe limits on what Chen could accomplish (though arguably he and the DPP also failed to use what power they did have well). Even after two decades of democracy, there are still many traces of Taiwan’s long history as a one party state under the KMT, which still holds considerable assets that it appropriated over the years (before it started to divest some of its property in the past decade or so, it was claimed to be the richest political party in the world, and it still would probably rank quite high). While the most extreme China-leaning people have left the KMT to form fringe parties such as the New Party, not only has the KMT retained the support of most voters with stronger ties to China (whether due to family background or a desire to make money there) and those who have a particular self-interest in being pro-KMT (such as corrupt businesspeople with ties to corrupt KMT politicians), it has also had the support of many more cautious (or timid) Taiwanese, who even if they prefer for Taiwan to retain its independence from China are nevertheless afraid to challenge it in any way, such as formally or even indirectly asserting that independence. The KMT has also tended to receive more support from minority groups like the Hakka and the Taiwanese aboriginies, who – not without reason – see the DPP as favoring the Hoklo majority.

This history is what makes the results of this election particularly dramatic, even if it remains to be seen how permanent the changes will be. The DPP candidate, Tsai Ing-wen, won in a huge landslide, winning 6.89 million votes to 3.81 million for KMT candidate Eric Chu and 1.58 for third party candidate and former KMT stalwart James Soong, who was making his third (and hopefully last) independent bid. To put this in perspective, Chen won for the first time in a three way race with only [40%] of the vote, and while he won a majority in a two person race in 2004, it was a very narrow victory in which he won just barely over 50% of the vote. The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, garnered over 7.6 million votes in a two person race in 2008, which is still the highest vote total, but while this was enough for a large victory margin of over 2 million votes, even this was less than the 3 million vote margin that Tsai won by this time. The only time a winning candidate for president of Taiwan has beaten the 2nd place finisher in the election by a greater margin than Tsai’s was in the very first democratic presidential election in 1996, when the incumbent Lee Teng-hui of the KMT won a four person race in a landslide, beating Peng Ming-min of the DPP, who came in second, by over 3.5 million votes. But that was an exceptional case, as even many people who disliked the KMT and were more Taiwan-oriented voted for Lee, who after he left office revealed himself to be strongly pro-independence. Amazingly, despite the KMT’s traditional dominance in north Taiwan, Tsai won the most votes in every county except the two eastern ones of Hualien and Taitung and the two small island counties located just off the Chinese coast.

Not only was Tsai’s victory an unprecedentedly overwhelming one for a DPP presidential candidate, the DPP also won a comfortable majority in the legislature, which as noted above the KMT had always maintained a majority in, even during Chen’s administration. In a legislature of 113 seats, the DPP ended up with 68 and the KMT with only 35 (though in one particularly close race the KMT candidate has asked for a recount). This is in some ways a more important change than just seeing the presidency change hands. While a lot of Western media reports mention Chen’s administration, few point out the KMT’s retention of the legislature during that time, even though it meant that the DPP never had full control of the government. Now that has finally changed, and the DPP will be able to fully implement its policies.

So how should this result be viewed? All in all, it is a positive change. It is good to see Taiwanese voters be a bit more assertive about their own identity, though I should note that this vote should not be seen as exclusively or even mostly a referendum on Taiwan’s relationship with China. While that played a big role for many voters who have been disturbed by the outgoing Ma administration’s pro-China policies, other voters simply voted for change due to dissatisfaction with Ma’s domestic policies or with the state of the economy and their own place in it. However, even voters who chose Tsai simply out of dislike for Ma and his heir-presumptive Chu had to be at least aware of the differences in her attitude toward China, even if she remained vague about her planned China policy when campaigning. So while Tsai’s victory was not all about asserting Taiwan’s identity, it’s safe to say that the majority of the people who voted for her were at least comfortable with the idea of placing more emphasis on Taiwan as an entity separate from China.

Perhaps an even bigger reason to celebrate the results of this election is that the KMT has definitively lost power for the first time ever, and a lot of terrible legislators lost their seats (just to name one, the legislator who underhandedly passed the service trade agreement with China out of the committee he chaired, thereby provoking the Sunflower protests, lost in this election). Indeed, for many politically aware people in Taiwan, the KMT’s loss is the real reason for celebration, not the DPP’s victory. While the DPP certainly has a greater number of good people among its incoming legislators (including two I am slightly acquainted with personally), by no means all of them are great, and many are still unknown quantities. Likewise, Tsai is not perfect (she even expressed admiration for the awful Margaret Thatcher, who was the UK prime minister when Tsai was a student there) and we don’t know how she will perform in office. But it would be hard for Tsai and the new DPP majority to be worse than Ma and the KMT.

But this election wasn’t just a contest between the DPP and the KMT, and here’s an area where my feelings about the election are mixed. Taiwanese have the great fortune of being able to vote not just for president and the legislator representing their district, but also for political parties on a separate party list vote, with each party nominating at-large candidates who would be elected if their party won enough votes (the two DPP legislators-elect that I’ve met were at-large candidates). There were 16 parties on the latter ballot, ranging from strange to terrible to extremely promising. The best of the latter was the Green-Social Democratic Party Coalition, which as the name implies was a coalition between the Green Party and the newly established Social Democratic Party. Several members of the latter ran in the district races in Taipei, including one woman that I know through my wife and a couple more of my wife’s acquaintances, one of whom came in a fairly strong second to one of the few KMT legislators to win in Taipei (traditionally a KMT stronghold), while the others did quite well for political novices from a new, relatively unknown party with a small advertising budget. But while the coalition itself got a decent 2.5% of the party vote, a substantial improvement over the Green Party’s showing in 2012, this was still well short of the 5% needed to get any of its at-large legislative candidates elected, and somewhat short of the 3.5% needed to get election subsidies. This is regrettable, as Taiwan really could use an independent, progressive voice in the legislature to counterbalance the DPP.

Actually, one could argue that such a party did get into the legislature this time around. Only four parties reached the 5% threshold: the DPP, the KMT, the PFP of James Soong (which despite heavily benefiting from Soong’s highly visible candidacy for president received just over 6.5% of the party vote), and the newly-established New Power Party. This latter party was also created to be a progressive “third force”, and in fact several of its founders were originally associated with the founders of the Social Democratic Party (my wife says that one of the latter once came to ask her about one of the former, another long-time acquaintance of ours, as he was asking her to join their group, which had not yet transformed into a political party). But like too many idealists the world over, they quarreled over tactics and ended up forming two separate parties, regrettably diluting their strength. One of their areas of disagreement was that the people organizing the NPP wanted to pick well-known individuals as candidates, while the SDP preferred long-time activists (though some of the NPP candidates were that as well). Another difference is the NPP, despite its declared intention to be a third force to counter both the KMT and the DPP, ended up working fairly closely with the latter, even coordinating so that with one exception NPP candidates didn’t run in districts with DPP candidates and vice versa. The NPP did also cooperate with the Green-SDP coalition in this regard, but the latter didn’t work with the DPP, preferring to maintain more independence from the larger party, though they clearly preferred the DPP to the KMT (their ads said that they wanted to “bring down the KMT and keep an eye on the DPP”).

While the NPP’s approach was less idealistic and perhaps insufficiently independent from the DPP, it has to be said that it paid off, as the party won 6% of the party vote, thereby electing the top 2 candidates on its at-large list. While this is less than the 3 seats that the PFP from the party vote (the PFP also won one of the six seats reserved for Taiwanese aborigines, for a total of 4), the party also won three seats in district elections, beating KMT candidates head to head in areas that traditionally lean strongly toward the KMT. Among these victors was another acquaintance, Freddy Lim, the lead singer of the death metal band Chthonic, who we know through his work with the Taiwan branch of Amnesty International (he was the branch chairman for several years). His victory in particular was an upset, as the part of Taipei where he ran generally votes heavily for the KMT (the KMT incumbent’s desperate mudslinging in the last weeks before the election – for example claiming that Lim “supported” the young man who murdered four people and injured two dozen more on the MRT in 2014 because Lim had expressed support for abolishing the death penalty – apparently failed to work). So while my own top choice for the party vote if I was able to vote in Taiwan, the Green-SDP Coalition, didn’t win any seats, the NPP, who would have been my second choice, did quite well.

Nevertheless, it still seems to me that a lot of Taiwanese voters failed to make proper use of their party votes. While I can understand voting for the DPP on the party ballot (they would have been my third choice, and some of the at-large candidates on their list were quite good), it still would have been better if more people had instead given their votes to one of the better small parties. Certainly if the US had a party vote I’d use mine to support a small progressive party like the Green Party or the Working People Party, as long as they put forward good candidates, since while the Democrats in general are vastly preferable to the Republicans, many of them still leave a lot to be desired. If more Taiwanese voted for groups like the Green-SDP Coalition or even the NPP (if they manage to remain independent of the DPP), maybe someday the DPP’s main opposition will come from the left, rather than the declining KMT.

Of course we can’t be sure yet that the KMT is permanently in decline. The party still has a substantial base of support, and as noted earlier many in the bureaucracy and military leadership are KMT members or at least lean toward the KMT, though perhaps their predominance is not as overwhelming as it was a decade or more ago. If things don’t go well for the DPP, the KMT might make a comeback. Of course, that will be even more likely if the party manages to reform itself, something it hasn’t shown much capability of doing. But if it does, and in particular if it can reorient itself to be more populist and more Taiwanese, it might still have a long future. It’s true that if it completely abandons its pro-China bent it may lose some support from those Taiwanese who are strongly pro-China themselves. But then this group is a shrinking minority, at least if we are speaking of those whose pro-China leanings are ideological in nature (amoral businesspeople wanting to make money in China may be another matter, though the slowing of the Chinese economy may change some of their minds), and many of them have already abandoned the KMT for the even more extreme New Party, which regrettably managed to get over 4% of the party vote (not enough for seats, but enough for subsidies). However, they may have been helped by the chaos in the KMT, which as I discussed in a post a few months ago replaced their original candidate, Hung Hsiu-chu, with Eric Chu in part because the former’s exceptionally strong pro-China attitude was hurting the party in the polls. Those KMT members who actually preferred Hung may have ended up turning to the New Party, boosting their support, and if the KMT reforms as it should, they may just stay there. While I’d rather see groups such as the New Party disappear entirely, if they remain a fringe party that absorbs the pro-China extremists, perhaps they serve some purpose after all.

One other disappointment about the election came from the votes for the six aboriginal seats. Another acquaintance of ours ran for one of these, but while he improved on his showing last time, he still fell well short, despite being supported by many politically active aboriginal people, including most of the aboriginal singers and musicians I know. Instead, it was mainly the same old, mostly poorly performing legislators who got elected. We can only hope that Tsai’s policies toward the aboriginal people take their real interests into account, and that she listens to the voices of the young activists, rather than the hidebound conservatives who still hold most of the formal political power. Perhaps by the next election, more of the aboriginal electorate will become aware of how their current “leaders” are failing to protect their interests and will vote for new leadership. In the meantime, aborigines and non-aborigines alike can at least look forward to seeing what progress Taiwan can make without the KMT in charge.

What I've Been Reading: July 2015 to November 2015

As was the case for the first half of this year and much of the previous one, my reading pace has been slowed down by my tendency to use my commuting time to check my email on my phone and work on various projects on my laptop rather than to do my reading. However, I still have managed to get some reading in. The books described below are ones that I've finished in the latter half of the year, and there are a few others that I should manage to finish soon.

Voices and Powers by Ursula K. LeGuin
These two novels are sequels to LeGuin’s Gifts and the second and third in her Annals of the Western Shore series. Each novel has a different main protagonist, though Orrec and Gry from Gifts play a major role in Voices, and the two of them, together with Memer, the protagonist of Voices, appear briefly at the end of Powers. In terms of dramatic setting, Voices is probably the most “typical” of the three books, as Memer is an adolescent girl living in a city occupied by a hostile army, and she comes to play a role in the effort by the people of the city to throw off the yoke of their oppressors. But as might be expected of LeGuin’s thoughtful writing, Memer learns that things are not completely black and white and that violence is not always the best way to accomplish things. Powers tells the tale of Gavir, a young man who grows up as a slave in a city-state somewhat reminiscent of ancient Greece or Rome that is at almost constant war with its neighbors (though which ones varies due to constantly shifting alliances). Though at first glance, the family that Gavir belongs to treats their slaves very well, almost like members of the family, we soon learn that there is a dark side even to the best master-slave relationships. This novel has less conventional action than Voices, being more of a tale of personal discovery, but it has its share of drama and terrible tragedy.

All three books share to some extent the central theme of the power of books and the written word, as the protagonists are all readers living among people who mostly read less well than them, or not at all, and their reading ability plays an important role in the story, particularly in Voices and Powers. Reading is at the center of Memer and Gavir’s lives and their interactions with both the literate and the illiterate people around them. As for these other characters, many of them are also quite complex and well-developed. Interestingly, the most one-dimensional characters in any of the three Western Shore novels are the chief villains. Even more complex than most of the characters are the pictures of the societies, which, as in all of LeGuin’s novels, are drawn in vivid detail. Overall, both these books are up to LeGuin’s usual high standards and are well worth reading.

Freedom in Exile by the Dalai Lama
The autobiography of the man who was born Lhamo Dondrub but is now better known as Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is very interesting reading. While I knew the basic outline of his life and, having read one of his books (Beyond Religion) and heard a few of his speeches, I knew something about his views on many issues, it was quite fascinating to learn the details. Of course anyone who knows even a little about his life knows that the Chinese claims that he is an inveterate anti-Communist and anti-Chinese radical are complete nonsense, but it was interesting to learn the details of his attempts to reach some sort of accommodation with the Chinese Communists, including his meetings with Mao Zedong and other leaders, and of his opinions of various political and economic systems – as he also says in his other book, he considers himself half a Marxist in terms of ensuring that wealth is distributed fairly, though he found that Communism as practiced in China fell far short of its lofty ideals. I only recall one occasion in the book where he slips into negative (though understandable) stereotyping of Chinese people in general; for the most part he bends over backwards to make the point that despite the terrible way the Chinese government has treated his people, he bears no ill will toward the Chinese. Though of course he regards Tibet as a country that was historically independent of China, which it in fact was, he reiterates a willingness to compromise with China on the issue of Tibet’s status, even though justly he could (and some might say should) insist on full independence.

The Dalai Lama’s stories of his childhood are quite fascinating. He grew up mostly secluded from the general populace, though he did occasionally slip out and from an early age showed a keen interest in ordinary people and their lives. While it must have been quite strange to be treated as almost a living god, it seemingly didn’t turn his head, and once his situation was transformed by first the Chinese invasion and eventually exile, he was quick to eliminate many of the formalities that had grown up around his positions. Possessing a lively curiosity and a rational mind, he unsurprisingly developed an interest in technology and science. He isn’t entirely free from unscientific beliefs, however; he expresses some faith in the powers of soothsayers, though he also makes it clear that he knows not everyone shares his belief – indeed, his own expressions of belief have a bit of ambivalence about them. Certainly for the leader of a religion who grew up surrounded by a considerable amount of what I would frankly regard as superstition, he has a much more logical and scientific mind than would be expected; indeed more so than most Westerners. While one might learn as much or more about the Dalai Lama’s philosophical views from other books he’s written, this autobiography is an excellent way to learn about his own take on his very eventful life and about the recent history of Tibet.

MaddAddam by Margaret Atwood
MaddAddam is the third and final book in Margaret Atwood’s trilogy about a dystopian near future, continuing the story that started in Oryx and Crake and continued in The Year of the Flood. Like those two novels, MaddAddam is told partly in the post-apocalyptic present and partly in flashbacks to the time before the plague that wiped out most of humanity, causing the collapse of civilization. In this novel, the focus is on Toby, who also was one of the two main protagonists of The Year of the Flood, and Zeb, who also played a major role in the second novel. The parts of the novel set in the present are told from Toby’s viewpoint, and they are interspersed with Zeb’s account to Toby of his life up to the time they met as members of the group called God’s Gardeners, founded by Adam, Zeb’s brother (though there is some question as to their precise genetic relationship). Jimmy and Ren, the main protagonist of Oryx and Crake and the second main protagonist of The Year of the Flood, also appear, though Ren’s role is relatively minor.

All in all, MaddAddam meets the standards set by the previous two novels, and if anything may be slightly stronger than The Year of the Flood. There is at least one apparent minor inconsistency between this book and the previous one regarding the fate of Adam, presumably because Atwood simply changed her mind, but this is insignificant and could perhaps be explained away. The only bit I found slightly disappointing was the way the fate of the three characters who disappeared on an expedition at the very end of the novel was handled. Even if the group believed that the explanation of what had happened to them was accurate, you’d think they’d send another group out to check, just in case there were (perhaps injured) survivors on either side. It seemed a bit odd for them to just make an assumption and leave it at that. However, despite this flaw, the book is otherwise a good conclusion to an excellent trilogy of novels, one that I’d recommend to readers of any sort.

Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach
Ecotopia, first published in 1975, is a very interesting book that in some ways is more of a manifesto for an ideal society than a standard novel. The basic premise is that part of the United States, specifically northern California, Oregon and Washington, has broken away and formed the nation of Ecotopia. The new country is founded on radical, idealistic principles with respect to ecology, politics, economics and indeed virtually every element of society. A journalist from the United States visits Ecotopia several decades after its independence to do a series of investigative reports on the country, which has been largely closed to Americans since it was established.

Ecotopia, as the name implies, embodies ecological principles under which humans’ use of nature is kept in careful balance. Highly artificial materials (such as most plastics) and exploitative materials such as metals and fossil fuels are dispensed with and replaced by natural materials. While animals are still eaten, they are hunted with simple weapons like bows and arrows, and care is taken to avoid over-hunting. Wood is used for a lot of things, including construction, but forests are planted to replace all wood used.

The society of Ecotopia is likewise very different from that of the US. Women and men are completely equal; indeed, women were the main driving force behind the country’s establishment. Social relations have been completely transformed, including everything from sexual relations to the raising of children. Government is highly decentralized, and large cities have been broken up into more manageable sizes. People are guaranteed basic necessities, and work to get luxuries. Schools involve a lot of independent, hands-on work by the students, including spending time exploring nature. Even relationships are quite different, with American prudishness about sex largely dispensed with, though people still form strong pair bonds (it’s even mentioned that there is no stigma about same sex relationships).

What plot there is in Ecotopia has to do with how the American journalist, William Weston, grows in his understanding of Ecotopian society and particularly how he gets involved in a relationship with an Ecotopian woman who aids him in this process. But the plot is not really the point here. The main purpose of the book is to present a comprehensive picture of a possible society founded on principles of environmental sustainability and social and economic equality and stability. While some aspects of the book date it somewhat – for example, while fossil fuels are rejected by the Ecotopians, this is because of their polluting and unsustainable qualities, not because of climate change, which is not even mentioned (the concept was known long before the book was published but had not really seeped into the public consciousness) – it is also remarkable prescient in some ways, including some of the products the Ecotopians make and some of the ways they obtain energy. Some of the changes in the way people behave strike me as a bit dubious, not so much because they would be undesirable, but because, as author Iain Banks said with regard to his futuristic society the Culture, they seem a little difficult to obtain without some sort of genetic engineering to fundamentally change some of the negative aspects of human nature. But with a few exceptions most aspects of Ecotopia do seem like they’d be a vast improvement over modern, capitalistic society. In general, the book is a thought-provoking look at some ways society could be made more sustainable and equitable, and could provide the starting point for some interesting debates.

Paris Agreement on Climate Change

In my last post, I talked about the climate conference in Paris. Now the summit is over and an agreement was reached by the attending countries (regrettably not including Taiwan, thanks of course to China, which acts as if it would rather see human civilization collapse due to runaway climate change than recognize Taiwan as an independent nation) to limit the global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius, with a goal of holding the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees. This is in many ways an impressive, landmark agreement, as it is the first time that almost all the world’s nations have committed to fighting climate change and set specific goals to mitigate its effects. For this reason, the agreement is being widely celebrated, not only by the leaders who signed it but by many environmental groups and non-governmental organizations. However, there has been some criticism of the agreement as falling short of the truly revolutionary transformation that is needed and for lacking in specific binding steps that countries must take within specific time frames. While I haven’t read the agreement or even seen a detailed summary of it, from what I’ve heard, there is merit to both the positive and negative views of it.

It is certainly fair to say that the agreement is about as good as or even better than could have been realistically expected, considering factors such as political inertia, diversity of interests, and outright obstruction from some parties both inside and outside the negotiations. Past climate conferences have not produced anything nearly as far reaching as this agreement, and the fact that a goal of limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees was included was a pleasant surprise, as the conventional wisdom before the summit was that a 2 degree limit was the best that was likely to be agreed to. As I understand it, the agreement also talks of a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, a big improvement over the vague declarations of the past. It seems that to a point at least pressure from NGOs, civil society, and the nations that will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, particularly the small island nations whose very existence is in danger, was able to push the negotiators in the right direction.

On the other hand, those who say the agreement falls short have a point as well. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1 degree Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Even if we stopped all production of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane immediately, temperatures would still continue to rise for some time afterwards, as the gases already produced would remain in the atmosphere (though methane persists for less long, leading some to point out that stopping methane production – including putting a stop to fracking – would have more immediate benefits as far as limiting temperature increases). Scientists have stated that in order to keep temperature increases to a manageable level, global fossil fuel use needs to have peaked no later than 2020, only five years from now. Given this situation, it is fair to question whether an agreement that doesn’t actually require countries to take immediate action will be able to meet its stated goals. Countries are required to report on their progress every five years, but as far as I am aware, there are no sanctions or penalties for failure to make progress. In other words, while the stated goals may meet expectations, there is no guarantee that they will actually be met. Also, while there is general talk of lower net carbon emissions to zero, there is apparently no specific mention of one necessary step to reach that goal, namely eliminating or at least heavily reducing the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the aid being offered to developing countries by developed ones falls short of what they are likely to really need.

It should be noted that one reason for the lack of binding measures and sufficient funding for developing nations is the US Republican Party. US Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted that the main reason the US negotiators didn’t want specific language of this sort was that it would mean that US Congress – dominated by climate changing denying Republicans – would have to review the agreement. So while Kerry and US President Barack Obama aren’t to blame for the agreement’s shortfalls (at least no more than most of the other similarly overcautious leaders), the Republicans and their supporters, along with the fossil fuel industry and certain oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, are largely responsible for the agreement not being all it could have been. Though to some extent it is not surprising that those who have a vested interest in today’s fossil fuel industry would be reluctant to accept the need to change, it is still extremely irresponsible and selfish, and in some instances possibly even criminal, such as in the case of Exxon’s funding of climate change denialism despite having been warned by its own scientists of the threat of climate change as early as the 1970s and 1980s. As for those who are actually delusional enough to not accept that there is a problem, some may eventually come around, but in any case anyone in leadership positions who is either unable or unwilling to accept the science should definitely be voted out or replaced so they can’t continue to obstruct efforts to make change.

Despite the major caveats discussed above, the agreement should be viewed as an important step in the right direction. While it could be a lot better, it is a global acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and provides a framework for further progress. What’s important now is that we all work with the many activist groups focused on this issue to put pressure on our governments to not only fulfill the commitments they made in this agreement but also accelerate their progress toward a clean energy future while we all work to change our societies to make them more sustainable. If we are to avoid potentially disastrous consequences, we have to immediately start building on the limited progress that the Paris Agreement represents.

Paris Climate Summit

The most important thing going on in the world right now is the climate summit in Paris, which will help determine whether or not we will be able to avoid or at least ameliorate the severe disruption that will result from anthropogenic climate change. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have already reached 400 ppm (they were less than 300 ppm in the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was first getting into full swing), methane levels are also rising, and the average global temperature has already increased by about one degree Celsius. This year has seen an almost constant stream of record hot months, and is certain to be the hottest year on record, beating out 2014, which is the current record holder. Even if the current summit produces an unexpectedly strong, binding agreement, we will almost certainly see a further increase in the average global temperature of about 1.5 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, even the more modest target of a 2 degree Celsius increase, regarded as the maximum that we can afford if we want to avoid catastrophic disruption, will prove difficult to meet if the world’s political leaders don’t start showing more boldness than most of them have demonstrated so far. Humanity has to decisively break free of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means standing up to the wealthy and politically well-connected oil and coal interests, and we also need to make major changes in how we feed everyone. Without immediate steps along these lines, we’re likely to see temperature increases of over 2 degrees Celsius, possibly much higher.

Even a complete lack of action would not result in anything like the extinction of humanity, much less all life on Earth. For that matter, the planet’s natural climate balancing mechanisms, such as the carbon cycle, will probably eventually undo much of the damage. But the key word is “eventually”; we’re talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of years, a short time period as far as the Earth is concerned, but a very long time in comparison with human history. This is why the argument made by climate change deniers that what climate change is occurring is not big deal because the climate is “always changing”. The problem is that thanks to us, it is changing as much in just a few centuries as it might normally in many thousands of years. The Earth and Terran life in general can adapt to these changes, but it will take a long time to do so. The changes that will result just within this century from continued inaction will in the meantime flood low-lying areas all around the world, including cities and densely populated areas that are home to hundreds of millions of people, crops that feed hundreds of millions more will have their production disrupted, some small island nations will disappear entirely, and many species will become extinct. While humanity as a whole is adaptable and will almost certainly survive, suffering will be widespread. In fact, if change is severe enough, modern human civilization could be in danger. While some of humanity will probably be able to go on as usual even if millions die and hundreds of millions are made homeless, it’s possible that disruption will reach a scale where even the world’s developed nations will descend into chaos. After all, it’s highly probable that the climate change that has already occurred contributed to the current problems in Syria. If global temperatures rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius, the world may end with a dozen places as messed up as Syria and tens or even hundreds of millions of refugees trying to get into the world’s wealthy nations. This is even aside from the changes experienced by those nations themselves, including densely populated areas becoming uninhabitable. Can human civilization endure the strains that will result? Maybe, but it’s far from certain.

I’ll admit that I’m fairly cynical about whether we will be able to hit even the 2 degree target, which is already on the high side. There’s still too much apathy and outright resistance by the foolish and the selfish. But this doesn’t mean I agree those who just throw up their hands and say we can’t do anything so we shouldn’t bother trying. Every little bit we do now may save millions of lives in the future, so we should do as much as we possibly can as soon as we possibly can.

Current Events: Paris and Beirut, Two National Elections And China-Taiwan Meeting

There have been a lot of big news stories around the world in the last few weeks. The latest is of course the terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut (though the latter got considerably less attention, and not just because the death toll was smaller). Attacks like these call for a well thought-out response, not simplistic, ignorant “solutions”, but that hasn’t stopped some people from suggesting the latter. Many, for example, have tried to blame the refugees from Syria who have recently fled to Europe in large numbers, with a number of right-wing governors in the US declaring that they don’t want them in their states (despite lacking any legal authority to contest the federal government’s decisions in such matters) and some Republicans attempting to keep them out of the US altogether, even though the attack was largely carried out by EU citizens. One passport found at the scene appears to have belonged to a Syrian who entered Europe as a refugee, but some have suggested that this may have been a deliberate plant by ISIS, which generally rejects passports and other trappings of modern nation-states but has an interest in turning Westerns against refugees (who they hate) and in getting the West to treat all Muslims as enemies, thereby creating the religious war they want. In any case, if one or even a few out of hundreds of thousands of refugees turn out to be violent radicals, it’s no more reasonable to blame the rest of them for what happened in Paris than it is to blame all white people in the US for the terrorist act of the Charleston shooter. A bigger source of danger remains homegrown radicals, of whatever ideology, whether it’s people like Roof in the US, Breivik in Norway, or the hundreds of French citizens who have gone abroad to fight for ISIS and then returned to France (though even the latter should not all be assumed to be dangerous, as many left due to disillusionment and in at least some cases have rejected radical ideology). In fact, most of the Paris attackers who have been identified were French or Belgian by birth or upbringing, and French President François Hollande, in contrast to the repellent posturing of many conservative American politicians, has emphasized that France has the “humanitarian duty” to take in all the Syrian refugees it had agreed to admit.

This attack does seem to differ from atrocities like the ones in Charleston and Norway, which were committed by individual lunatics, or even the Charlie Hebdo attack at the beginning of the year, which was committed by a few local crazies largely on their own initiative, in that it seems from what is known so far that it may have been at least partly planned and coordinated from abroad. Nevertheless, even if ISIS was directly responsible for the attack, this if anything should mean we should be even more sympathetic to the refugees, since, as others have pointed out, the people who seem to have been responsible for the attack are the same people the refugees are fleeing from. Ironically, the response of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, was considerably more moderate and reasonable than that of many xenophobes in the West. While it may not be surprising that he would strongly condemn attacks by ISIS, a group that is currently one of Hezbollah’s biggest enemies (indeed, one of ISIS’s biggest accomplishments is making enemies out of everybody, something they’ve just reinforced by attacking a Russian airplane, a Shiite neighborhood in Beirut and a major Western capital in quick succession), it is notable that with reference to the attacks in Lebanon, he called on Lebanese not to blame the Syrian refugees in their country, and Lebanon has many times more Syrian refugees than any country in Europe. If only Western right-wingers would show as much sense.

The truth is, if ISIS or other extremist groups based abroad want to launch attacks on the West, it is much easier for them to use local radicals or get into the country as tourists or business travels than to enter as refugees. The idea being promoted by conservative Republicans that Syrian refugees are a threat to the US is absurd. Refugees go through many checks, far more than others who come into the country (not to mention the right-wing radicals like Roof, who are probably more of a danger), and there are virtually no cases of any refugees admitted since 2001 being involved in suspected terrorism in the US. The people of Syria have had to live with attacks like the one in Paris on an almost daily basis for several years now, and yet some people’s response when they come seeking refuge is to turn them away on the unlikely chance that a minuscule fraction of them may be terrorists, or to only admit those belonging to a particular religion? It’s not only ridiculous, it’s frankly disgusting, and I’m glad that US President Barack Obama didn’t mince words in criticizing such calls. It would be just as logical to stop allowing Norwegians into the US on the off chance that one might be like Breivik, or to stop allowing Christians because they might be like Joseph Kony. To call for stopping all Syrian or Muslim refugees from entering the US or other Western countries, one would have to be ignorant, cowardly, or morally bankrupt – or some combination of the three. When we stand in solidarity with the people of Paris – and Beirut – we should also speak out strongly against those among us who are playing into the hands of ISIS by making this out to be a conflict between the West and Muslims in general. This is not a fight against “radical Islam”, it’s a fight against all violent and hateful groups, whatever their religion or ethnic origin, including any who threaten violence against peaceful Muslims or refugees in the West.

A final note on Paris: Lest it be forgotten, at the end of this month leaders from around the world will be meeting there to address climate change. Not only are the terror attacks not a reason to delay or reduce the scope of the meeting, they actually should be an extra incentive to take action. After all, as I have talked about before and others such as US presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have noted, there is a direct link between climate change and the Syrian civil war via the severe drought the country suffered in the years leading up to it, creating mass unemployment, internal migration, instability and suffering that helped fuel the discontent that Assad’s bloody response to turned into a full scale rebellion. If we don’t do something about climate change, even more suffering and instability will no doubt create even more conflict, with radical groups of whatever ideology feeding off of it. We’ll have to hope that the world leaders meeting in Paris fully understand this and it helps push them to agree on real steps to deal with climate change.

Another significant news item is the national elections that took place in Turkey and Myanmar (Burma). In Turkey, regrettably, the AKP, the party of the country’s nationalist and increasingly authoritarian leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, regained its parliamentary majority, having lost it in the elections in June. Erdogan first hindered efforts to create a coalition government, making new elections necessary, and then he openly campaigned for the AKP, both actions contrary to his position as the supposedly neutral president of the country. What’s more, he instigated an unjustified conflict with Kurdish rebels in order to inflame nationalist passions. Despite all this, it shouldn’t be overlooked that Erdogan’s victory, while unexpected by the pollsters, was not as overwhelming as many headlines might lead one to believe. The AKP won just under 50% vote, far more than they deserved to get, but still less than an absolute majority. While they won a sizable majority of seats, they still fell short of a supermajority, so Erdogan will only be able to make the constitutional changes he wants (such as, naturally, strengthening the power of the president) if he can get some cooperation from other parties. The party which saw the greatest reduction in votes and seats was the right-wing nationalist MHP, a group at least as bad as the AKP. The more left-leaning CHP, the biggest opposition party, actually gained two seats and saw a slight increase in votes. The Kurdish party HDP lost a considerable number of votes and seats, but not nearly as many as the MHP, despite being demonized by the AKP as being associated with Kurdish rebel groups and having turnout in its strongholds reduced by the conflict engineered by Erdogan, not to mention having a peace rally attended by many of its activists targeted in the deadliest terrorist attack ever in modern Turkey. Also it should be remembered that the performance of the HDP in the June elections was also a surprise to many observers, so their performance this time was closer to what had been expected in June. So really the AKP didn’t get a victory as sweeping as they might have, considering that the election was considered “unfair” by many neutral observers. Still, it was a disappointing result. We can only hope that Erdogan and the AKP are not able to do too much more damage to Turkish democracy and relations with the country’s Kurdish minority before the next election, and that enough Turkish voters choose to reject the AKP when the time comes.

Another election was held this past weekend in Myanmar (Burma), the first in which control of the government was at stake. Before it relaxed its grip on power, the military dictatorship which had previously ruled Burma drew up a constitution which reserved a quarter of the seats in parliament for military appointees, kept key ministries (including, of course, defense) in military hands, and gave the military the right to take over under certain circumstances. They also included a provision barring anyone who had been married to a foreign national from the presidency, written specifically to prevent opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose late husband was British, from becoming president. This election was the first for which all of the non-military seats in parliament were up for grabs. Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won an overwhelming victory, winning the vast majority of contested seats, enough to gain an absolute majority. Unlike after the last freely contested elections in 1990, also won by the NLD in a landslide, this time the military seems to be willing to accept the results. Considering the military’s still substantial power, the NLD will still have to reach some accommodation with them; while changing the constitution to reduce the military’s power and allow Suu Kyi to become president might be a possibility, it would have to be done with care, lest the military decide to seize absolute power again. There’s also the awkward situation that will prevail in the meantime, in which Suu Kyi will be the clear leader of the ruling party and the dominant individual in the government but cannot hold the position of highest formal authority in the country. But the real test for Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD is not how they deal with the military, but whether they finally start acting to protect Myanmar’s Muslim minority, particularly the persecuted Rohingya. Unfortunately, their record so far in this regard is poor; the NLD didn’t even field a single Muslim candidate. While some extremist Buddhist monks even accused Suu Kyi and the NLD of being “Islamist” because they are not sufficiently Islamophobic, the unfortunate truth is that Suu Kyi has remain mostly silent on the almost genocidal oppression the Rohingya have been subjected to. Will she act differently now that she has real power? That remains to be seen.

Lastly, there was the recent meeting between Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou and Chinese president Xi Jinping. While Western media sources tended to play up the significance of the meeting, it really didn’t amount to much. Here’s part of a comment I posted about it on one of the articles: "Ma's main purpose in having this meeting was to boost the poor prospects of the KMT in next year's elections, and if that doesn't work, to undermine the future DPP government by setting bad precedents through talk of "one China", a concept most Taiwanese don't subscribe to. Given his extremely poor poll standing and virtual lame duck status, his actions shouldn't be seen as representing Taiwan or its people. China's government and its supporters always claim that people on both sides want China and Taiwan to unify. This is probably true of people in China, given the decades of nationalist propaganda people there have had to swallow, but in Taiwan most of the "one China" propaganda has been ditched and most Taiwanese don't want to unify with China. If China really believes its own claims that Taiwanese do want to be part of China, then they shouldn't have any objection to Taiwan having a referendum on the subject. It's because they know that unification would not win that they threaten violence if such a vote was held.... Maybe Ma Ying-jeou really wants to be Chinese. In that case he is free to move to China when he leaves office. But Taiwan's fate is up to the Taiwanese to decide. Anyone else with any sense of justice will support their right to self-determination. As for those Chinese who thanks to the nationalistic education they have received can't let go of the idea that Taiwan is China's, they should ask themselves, why should it really matter to them personally what Taiwan's status is? If Taiwanese don't share your loyalty to the idea of "China", do you really think you can or should force them to? Everyone should be free to live as they wish, as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of others -- which is what China is doing by trying to force unification on an unwilling Taiwan."

Despite this apparent attempt by Ma to boost the KMT’s candidate in the race to succeed him, polls afterwards showed that it didn’t help, and most people were not impressed with the meeting itself. While there is still some time to go before the election, there seems to be a very good chance that the KMT will lose the presidency and possibly even its legislative majority, which has not happened since the KMT fled to Taiwan in 1949. While the DPP is far from perfect – one reason I hoping that one or more of the left-leaning third parties such as the Green Party do well – it would be good to see the KMT finally lose power in Taiwan.

KIC 8462852 And the Likelihood of Finding Alien Civilizations

Over the past few weeks a number of articles have appeared in various news sources about the star KIC 8462852. This was one of the thousands of stars observed by the Kepler telescope in its search for extrasolar planets. For those who are unfamiliar with Kepler and how it works, the telescope observed stars over a long period of time, watching for periodic dips in their brightness that indicated the presence of planets passing in front of the stars and blocking a tiny portion of their light. Kepler’s initial observation period came to an end when two of the reaction wheels used to maintain the stability necessary for precise observations failed, though since then it has been re-purposed for more limited observations. The initial haul of data is still being analyzed and has already resulted in the discovery of hundreds of planets. Some of these planets are super-Earths (planets not much larger than Earth, as opposed to gas giants like Jupiter), and a few are in the theoretical habitable zones around their stars where liquid water could exist on their surfaces, though we as yet have no way of knowing if it actually does.

What stood out about KIC 8462852, a star somewhat larger than the Sun (spectral class F3 as compared to the Sun's G2) that is about 1480 light years away, was that the observed dips in its brightness were too substantial to have been caused by a planet, and they were irregular. In other words, in the two observed dimming events, which came about 750 days apart, the star dimmed, brightened and then dimmed again several times. This is extremely odd, and astronomers have struggled to come up with an explanation that fits the data. This uncertainty led a few astronomers to note that there was an additional possibility that didn’t involve natural phenomena. This was that the star was surrounded by some sort of alien megastructure designed to capture the star’s light for use as an energy source. This sort of construction has been proposed as a theoretical possibility before, with the most complete version being what is known as a Dyson sphere (after Freeman Dyson, who helped popularize the concept), which would totally surround the star in order to capture all or nearly all of its light. This is obviously not what is being observed here, but as Dyson himself later noted that a solid sphere or even ring around a star was "mechanically impossible", so a practical Dyson sphere would have be something like a swarm or bubble of constructs around the star, so the possibility remains open. Furthermore, some have pointed out that the megastructure could be incomplete (whether because it’s still under construction or because it is abandoned and derelict). In any case the idea is that it is something like a "Dyson swarm" that is being seen here.

Most likely, though, the explanation is something far more prosaic. Even the astronomers who have talked about the possibility that what is being seen at KIC 8462852 is an alien artifact have emphasized that the true explanation is likely to be something natural. The leading theories seems to be a unusually large swarm of comets, presumably disturbed by a recent passing star, though some question whether it is possible for a large enough number of comets to account for the data to have been disrupted, or simply dust, though astronomers are not sure why a seemingly older star (KIC 8462852 is thought to be at least as old as the 5-billion-year-old Sun, though there is still some uncertainty about that) would have so much dust around it. Despite the difficulties with both ideas, dust seems to be the most likely cause. Certainly we should want to see a lot more evidence before leaping to the extraordinary conclusion that aliens are the cause, or even anything more than a remote possibility; as Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But all the talk about KIC 8462852 does bring up once again the long-running debate over life in the universe, and specifically the likelihood that there are alien civilizations capable of space travel (obviously necessary to build any kind of structures around even the local star) out there somewhere. Of course, there are a lot of uncertainties involved, spelled out most clearly in the famous Drake equation. How many habitable planets are there? How many of those have life? How many planets with life give rise to technological civilizations capable of space travel? How long do such civilizations typically last? Everyone has different answers to these questions, but no one knows for sure. However, I’m willing to give my own take on the matter, even if I can’t claim to be an expert.

From all the planets we have discovered over the past two decades, we can estimate that there are over a hundred billion planets in the Milky Way, which is home to several hundred billion stars, many or even most of which are likely to have planets. Most of these planets will not be at all Earth-like, but it still seems likely that there could be billions in our galaxy that are similar enough to Earth to be considered habitable. The next question is how likely it is that life has arisen on these planets. We’re still not certain exactly how life arose here (though we’re getting closer all the time) and we still haven’t found definitive evidence of life originating anywhere other than Earth. Given how pervasive life is on Earth, though, I would not be surprised if we find traces of it elsewhere in the solar system, such as on Mars, Europa or Enceladus, and the fact that life seems to have appeared fairly early in Earth’s history is also a positive sign for how likely it is to arise in the first place.

But so far we are only talking about life in its most primitive, single-celled form. There is a rather large leap from this to a technological civilization capable of space travel. In fact, even if life in general turns out to be fairly common in the universe, we may find that on the vast majority of planets it consists entirely of single-celled organisms. After all, life existed on Earth for over 3 billion years before multi-cellular life appeared around 600 million years ago. To put that in perspective, life appeared within a billion years of the Earth’s formation and quite soon after the end of the hypothetical Late Heavy Bombardment era, during which it may have been difficult for even primitive life to survive (and even harder for any traces of life that may have arisen to survive for us to find), but for the vast majority of Earth’s history, there were only single-celled organisms – no plants or animals of any sort, much less intelligent life. This may indicate that it takes special conditions that are not easily fulfilled for multicellular life to evolve, and on many planets where life appears, these conditions may never arise.

Even if multicellular organisms appear, there is no guarantee that intelligent life forms will evolve – particularly intelligent life forms capable of constructing spaceships. Multicellular life had been on Earth for over half a billion years before humans evolved, so obviously intelligent life takes some time to appear. Of course on Earth there have been periodic mass extinctions that have wiped out most life, essentially setting back the evolutionary clock, so it isn’t as if we’ve had half a billion years of continuous evolution. On the other hand, other planets are likely to also suffer from periodic mass extinctions, and intelligent life would have to evolve in the periods between such events, which might be difficult if they were more frequent than they are on Earth. And even if intelligent life evolved, it would not necessarily be capable of developing advanced technology. It is often argued that dolphins are highly intelligent, but even if they are as smart as humans, they obviously can’t build spaceships. For that matter, even humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before developing advanced technology, and we couldn’t have done that without the right raw materials (for instance, sufficient amounts of iron that could be easily mined). Then there is the obvious danger of an advanced civilization destroying itself in a relatively short period of time, just as we could end up destroying ourselves (or at least sending ourselves back to a low level of technology) through nuclear weapons or catastrophic climate change. After all, we've been capable of space travel for only half a century. That's 0.025% of the time modern humans have been around, and 0.000001% of Earth's history. For us to have a chance of encountering (even from a distance) any alien civilizations, some of them would have to last a lot longer than that.

So there probably are a lot of barriers to advanced technological civilizations arising, to the point that they may only appear on a tiny fraction of habitable planets. But on the other hand, if there are 10 billion habitable planets in the galaxy, even a one in a hundred million chance that an advanced civilization had arisen and survived long enough to be around now would mean that there would be a hundred such civilizations. That’s not a particularly huge number, considering how large our galaxy is, and if they are that rare we may have trouble finding them, especially if we keep in mind how huge the distances between stars are - even talking to any aliens living in the KIC 8462852 system would take 3000 years for a single exchange of messages. As for alien civilizations in other galaxies, they would be so far away as to be completely inaccessible even for any form of communication, unless wormholes or other forms of exotic travel turn out to be possible. Still, while it seems too much to hope that KIC 8462852 will turn out to have advanced alien life, it almost certainly does exist somewhere else in the universe, and probably even exists somewhere else in our galaxy. Whether we will ever find it is another matter; however, I am all in favor of continuing to look.