The topic 'sustainable living' is topical, but what does it mean. The question arises, just what is sustainable?
Simplistically, all mining of natural resources is unsustainable.
Each natural resource that is mined is finite and thus must one day be exhausted if we simply keep digging from the ground. But will we ever run out?
Through landfills etc., it is clear the minerals we mine do usually eventually go back into the ground in some way. However, what was extracted from the natural resource originally is effectively 'used up' once and forever unless we have a realistic and sufficiently cost and energy efficient way of extracting the material back from landfill.
Of course, if we did have cost and energy efficient ways of recycling minerals that we have previously used, surely there would no longer be a need for mining? Well in reality we would still need some mining if the per/person requirement of a given resource increased, and also as the number of people increase. Now of course we cannot have infinite people. The earth has a finite amount of each element so you cannot produce infinite people on a finite Earth. One day population must stabilize.
So this leaves increases in the amount of a given element per person. Again this should be finite, so one day we should be able to treat mining natural resources as a special exception and simply get virtually all resources from recycling.
Until that day, we will not have reached 'sustainable living'. A zero 'carbon footprint' alone simply is not enough. It comes down to everything we dig out of the ground, not just oil and gas.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Gay marriage - a right or a wrong?
There are constant calls for legal recognition for gay marriage. Despite almost universal agreement that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexuality, there is still sufficient resistance that many jurisdictions who value equal rights for all sexual persuasions, resist calls to legalise gay marriage.
How can this be?
Well at stake are actually two core issues.
Number 1- equal treatment under the law for gay unions
Number 2- the right to use the word 'marriage'
Although in many cases not actually achieved, it seems difficult understand any argument against point number 1 if there is acceptance of equal rights for all sexual persuasions.
So now to argument number 2. Often the right to the usage of the same word becomes an integral part of the debate.
Note that equal rights for women has never hinged on the right of women to call themselves men.
If we give women the right to call themselves men, we lose the ability to refer to one specific gender. While it could be argued that we should never need to single out one gender, in the real world it is necessary to make the distinction between genders from time to time.
The biggest argument against allowing gay unions to use the word marriage is it removes having a distinct word for a union between a man and a woman. While again many may argue we should never need to make such a distinction, I think it is also a fundamental right to be able to keep a specific word. Equality is not dependant on removing gender specific words from the language- even though it can be dependant on such words not being used in an incorrect manner or to reinforce stereotypes.
The argument is reduced to semantics. There is a real problem that we have no 'more inclusive term' to describe a life partnership and perhaps we need one. Then laws could be altered to reflect the more inclusive term and the injustices overcome without continually being stuck on an emotive word.
How can this be?
Well at stake are actually two core issues.
Number 1- equal treatment under the law for gay unions
Number 2- the right to use the word 'marriage'
Although in many cases not actually achieved, it seems difficult understand any argument against point number 1 if there is acceptance of equal rights for all sexual persuasions.
So now to argument number 2. Often the right to the usage of the same word becomes an integral part of the debate.
Note that equal rights for women has never hinged on the right of women to call themselves men.
If we give women the right to call themselves men, we lose the ability to refer to one specific gender. While it could be argued that we should never need to single out one gender, in the real world it is necessary to make the distinction between genders from time to time.
The biggest argument against allowing gay unions to use the word marriage is it removes having a distinct word for a union between a man and a woman. While again many may argue we should never need to make such a distinction, I think it is also a fundamental right to be able to keep a specific word. Equality is not dependant on removing gender specific words from the language- even though it can be dependant on such words not being used in an incorrect manner or to reinforce stereotypes.
The argument is reduced to semantics. There is a real problem that we have no 'more inclusive term' to describe a life partnership and perhaps we need one. Then laws could be altered to reflect the more inclusive term and the injustices overcome without continually being stuck on an emotive word.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A take on the global warming debate
There is a large group of people who are sure that the earth is warming due to CO2 produced as a bi-product of human activity.
There is another group with an opposing view. Some are certain the certain there is no warming at all, others certain that although the earth is warming it is all part of a natural cycle and nothing to do with human activity.
So who is correct? Well, actually there is no certainty that any of these opinions is correct, which is one reason there is so much argument.
You can find science to support the idea the earth is getting warmer and other science saying maybe not. Then, if following the getting warmer belief, there are several possible explanations as to why the earth is getting warmer.
The answer is we do not know, we can only speak in probabilities. For ever a hypothesis there are too many variables to account for them all. In science, to move from hypothesis and to move to a theory, we need to be able to test ideas. Since we can't actually test completely without being able to conduct experiments using the earth and solar system.....we are stuck with 'models' that are trying to model such a complex system the model just has to be missing variables.
Even the IPCC does not say they know the definitive answer, the truth is they speak in probabilities. Being scientists, they give a percentage probability using data available so far. So the truth is there is no declaration 'the earth is warming due to CO2' but rather, a percentage chance the Earth is warning due to CO2. Think they are wrong? Well they can't be wrong because they only say 'there is a chance'. Perhaps the odds are not exactly in line with their projections.....but the clear the 'might be, might not' is a fairly safe overall position.
How can anyone ever say 100 percent anything. Surely every one can agree with the statement "there is some chance the world is warming due to the carbon emissions from human activity". The odds are clearly not ZERO that people are warming the earth....and clearly not ZERO that people are warming the earth. The argument should be either about what the correct probability is, or what is the significance of a given probability. The last report from the IPCC I saw stated they believed 90% chance people are causing warming...10% they are not. Now that report did not say the 90% was people causing the warming through C02...just 90% people are to blame.
Others can have different ideas. Maybe the IPCC did things wrong and the probability is 80% ....or 60% .....or even 40%???
The next question is at what percentage would you take action to change things. Now lets see.....what are the changes being required? 1) Use less fossil fuel. Hang on...it keeps getting more expensive because of supply issues anyway! 2) Stop clearing the worlds rainforest....3. reduce pollution in general..it keeps going.
Generally, every measure really seems to be a good thing anyway.Each step is something we would all agree makes sense eventually, it is just a question of when. To work to a timetable there is a cost. Each step is something we know we should do anyway.. it is just that there is a cost slowing problem that slows us from doing what we generally believe is correct anyway, and there is a chance that climate change is the wrong motivation anyway.
Now, for comparison, I insure my car every year. The insurance costs money- yet i do this even though the odds I will really need this insurance are much less than 10%. It is just that the consequences of my car being stolen are sufficiently unattractive that even with small odds, I pay. Just in case.
Now there is some chance things will really really get screwed up with the only earth we have, so what odds do we need before it is worth the expense of insuring against the risk?
There is another group with an opposing view. Some are certain the certain there is no warming at all, others certain that although the earth is warming it is all part of a natural cycle and nothing to do with human activity.
So who is correct? Well, actually there is no certainty that any of these opinions is correct, which is one reason there is so much argument.
You can find science to support the idea the earth is getting warmer and other science saying maybe not. Then, if following the getting warmer belief, there are several possible explanations as to why the earth is getting warmer.
The answer is we do not know, we can only speak in probabilities. For ever a hypothesis there are too many variables to account for them all. In science, to move from hypothesis and to move to a theory, we need to be able to test ideas. Since we can't actually test completely without being able to conduct experiments using the earth and solar system.....we are stuck with 'models' that are trying to model such a complex system the model just has to be missing variables.
Even the IPCC does not say they know the definitive answer, the truth is they speak in probabilities. Being scientists, they give a percentage probability using data available so far. So the truth is there is no declaration 'the earth is warming due to CO2' but rather, a percentage chance the Earth is warning due to CO2. Think they are wrong? Well they can't be wrong because they only say 'there is a chance'. Perhaps the odds are not exactly in line with their projections.....but the clear the 'might be, might not' is a fairly safe overall position.
How can anyone ever say 100 percent anything. Surely every one can agree with the statement "there is some chance the world is warming due to the carbon emissions from human activity". The odds are clearly not ZERO that people are warming the earth....and clearly not ZERO that people are warming the earth. The argument should be either about what the correct probability is, or what is the significance of a given probability. The last report from the IPCC I saw stated they believed 90% chance people are causing warming...10% they are not. Now that report did not say the 90% was people causing the warming through C02...just 90% people are to blame.
Others can have different ideas. Maybe the IPCC did things wrong and the probability is 80% ....or 60% .....or even 40%???
The next question is at what percentage would you take action to change things. Now lets see.....what are the changes being required? 1) Use less fossil fuel. Hang on...it keeps getting more expensive because of supply issues anyway! 2) Stop clearing the worlds rainforest....3. reduce pollution in general..it keeps going.
Generally, every measure really seems to be a good thing anyway.Each step is something we would all agree makes sense eventually, it is just a question of when. To work to a timetable there is a cost. Each step is something we know we should do anyway.. it is just that there is a cost slowing problem that slows us from doing what we generally believe is correct anyway, and there is a chance that climate change is the wrong motivation anyway.
Now, for comparison, I insure my car every year. The insurance costs money- yet i do this even though the odds I will really need this insurance are much less than 10%. It is just that the consequences of my car being stolen are sufficiently unattractive that even with small odds, I pay. Just in case.
Now there is some chance things will really really get screwed up with the only earth we have, so what odds do we need before it is worth the expense of insuring against the risk?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
preacher plans to burn the koran
In Florida, there is a preacher who plans to burn a print of the Koran.
There are many voices say he should do not do this, and it concerns me deeply.
The problem is, the voices I am hearing are saying it is wrong for the preacher to burn the koran because it will endanger troops in Afghanistan. Because of reprisals by foreign governments. Because of reprisals by Muslims against his fellow Christians.
All in all, there are so many voices basically saying he should not be it - all related to fear of revenge. Does anyone else feel this signals something is wrong?
The reason to do or not do something is reduced to fear? Surely, the principle argument should be is the act itself morally or otherwise simply wrong? And yes, what he is suggesting is wrong. No more wrong than any of the suggested consequences however.
Attacking the symbol of a religion because of the acts of a small group - or even a large group - of the followers of that religion, is morally wrong. Just as for followers of that religion to then attack others who were born in the country this man was born, or others who may have people in their country who have the same religion as this man, or may be the same religion as this man is also wrong. If there are degrees of wrong this is even more wrong.
It is wrong to seek revenge on a religion because of an act of a small number of people from that religion. In all cases. And those who suggest revenge against people of this preachers religion or from his country - or against others not even from his country on the basis that they may or may not be of his religion..those people should also be held in the same contempt as the original preacher.
There are many voices say he should do not do this, and it concerns me deeply.
The problem is, the voices I am hearing are saying it is wrong for the preacher to burn the koran because it will endanger troops in Afghanistan. Because of reprisals by foreign governments. Because of reprisals by Muslims against his fellow Christians.
All in all, there are so many voices basically saying he should not be it - all related to fear of revenge. Does anyone else feel this signals something is wrong?
The reason to do or not do something is reduced to fear? Surely, the principle argument should be is the act itself morally or otherwise simply wrong? And yes, what he is suggesting is wrong. No more wrong than any of the suggested consequences however.
Attacking the symbol of a religion because of the acts of a small group - or even a large group - of the followers of that religion, is morally wrong. Just as for followers of that religion to then attack others who were born in the country this man was born, or others who may have people in their country who have the same religion as this man, or may be the same religion as this man is also wrong. If there are degrees of wrong this is even more wrong.
It is wrong to seek revenge on a religion because of an act of a small number of people from that religion. In all cases. And those who suggest revenge against people of this preachers religion or from his country - or against others not even from his country on the basis that they may or may not be of his religion..those people should also be held in the same contempt as the original preacher.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)