tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-116874172024-03-07T22:18:50.040+01:00BiopoliticalBiopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.comBlogger507125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-62122761540769967582014-11-21T12:48:00.000+01:002014-11-21T12:50:52.333+01:00Conserving nature and embracing each otherIn <i>Working together: A call for inclusive conservation</i>, published in <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/working-together-a-call-for-inclusive-conservation-1.16260">Nature</a>, Heather Tallis, Jane Lubchenco and 238 co-signatories talk about the recent debate between the likes of Michael Soule, who believe that nature should be preserved for its own sake, and the likes of Peter Kareiva, who give more weight to the benefits humans derive. I left the following comment on the article's webpage:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The authors begin by asking why we make conservation efforts (an empirical question) and why we should make these efforts (a normative question). Then they lose all interest in the two questions. Instead, the remaining of the article is all about welcoming, engaging, embracing and listening to diverse genders, ethnicities, religions and philosophies; using compelling speeches and changing our governing language; matching values to contexts and audiences, and inspiring people to uphold intrinsic values no matter whether they exist or not; and getting funding for projects that do not advance obvious human goals. Near the end of the article they mention the need for "testing hypotheses based on observations, experiments and models." Except for that sentence, the article is not about science but about contemporary standards of courtesy (which I happen to dislike as much as the old ones).</blockquote>
Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-46845836295007055322014-05-28T11:15:00.000+02:002014-05-28T11:15:44.150+02:00Conservation, biocentrism and talk<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12296/full">At one end of the continuum</a>, people who are strongly anthropocentric care only about the welfare of humanity; all other species are resources to be exploited. They would be content in a world dominated by domestic species as long as there was sufficient food, water, and oxygen and whatever other elements of nature are necessary to provide people with healthy, happy lives. Conversely, people who are strongly biocentric consider Homo sapiens no more intrinsically important than any other species. Because of the overwhelming threats people pose to other species, biocentrists would prefer a world with a far lower human population living lifestyles that greatly reduced humanity's impact on wild species, even if it compromised their material well-being. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By describing these furthermost ends of the continuum, it becomes apparent that Soule leans toward the biocentric pole whereas Kareiva and Marvier are closer to the anthropocentric pole, but that they are much closer to one another than to either of the poles. </blockquote>
There is no such continuum. Nobody is even slightly biocentric. Some people are particularly fond of wildlife, just as others are of food, music, sports or cars. Some people may be so fond of cars or wildlife and so disrespectful of fellow humans that they may be willing to rob other people in order to get more joy from cars or wildlife. But that is all. There is no such thing as the intrinsic value of species. There are only the values each of us attaches to the things that surround us. We can estimate those values by observing human acts. And when people's words are incompatible with their other acts we can safely disregard the words.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-53162257803447812122014-01-19T12:35:00.000+01:002015-02-02T18:39:34.433+01:00Costanza and index fetishismIn <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499">Development: Time to leave GDP behind</a>, published in <i>Nature</i>, Robert Costanza and coauthors (thereafter Costanza) write:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[S]ince the end of the Second World War, promoting GDP growth has remained the primary national policy goal in almost every country 1.</blockquote>
The only support for this assertion is that number 1, a reference to the paper <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.001">The GDP paradox</a> by Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh. But van der Bergh does not argue or give any evidence that promoting GDP growth has ever been "the primary national policy goal in almost every country." Van der Bergh only says that politicians, journalists and commentators talk a lot about GDP, and that central bank managers, business managers and consumers use GDP data to inform their decisions. Neither talking about GDP nor reacting to GDP data make promoting GDP growth "the primary national policy goal in almost every country." Van der Bergh decries the fact that "rigorous empirical studies of the influence of GDP information on the economy are lacking" and adds:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Anyway, readers who are not convinced by the arguments in this section and feel that GDP information does not have much impact on the economy at large should really be sympathetic to reducing the role played by GDP information in the public sphere, as it serves no purpose while its provision is costly.</blockquote>
I am one of those. Provision is costly and I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. And I also think that political talk about GDP is as useless as political talk generally is.<br />
<br />
And I also think that political talk about some other quantitative measure of what Costanza calls "national success", and intended to replace GDP, would be as useless as political talk about GDP. Not so Costanza. He doesn't dislike political talk, or the ideas of "national success" or "the primary national policy goal" or their quantitative metrics. He just dislikes GDP.<br />
<br />
He wants to make well-being the "primary national policy goal." What is well-being? I don't know whether Costanza tries to be comprehensive or not, but he is clear that his concept of well-being is not related to income but is inversely related to crime, divorce, drug use, pollution, natural resource use and envy about income ("income inequality"). People who are not happy with their spouse or who enjoy drugs will probably disagree. People who are envious of the beauty, dancing skills or wisdom of others will probably feel excluded.<br />
<br />
How is well-being to be measured? Costanza discusses two ways. First, one can quantify things like envy of the wealthy, drug use and natural capital and combine them to produce a single metric like the Genuine Progress Indicator. Everybody, including drug users and fed-up spouses, will agree that "genuine progress" sounds better than "gross product." Second, one can ask people how happy or satisfied they are. He admits that one problem with this is that people often don't know what policies make them happy. In fact, people often support policies that ultimately make them unhappy. Politicians who win elections and thus end up managing "the primary policy goal" happen to navigate these problems and paradoxes more skillfully than failed politicians. An important skill in this regard is the ability to interpret opinion surveys. In the end, Costanza is either trying to do the same thing, but as an amateur, or just airing his political views on drug use and the wealthy.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-19408272315564629002014-01-16T11:44:00.000+01:002014-01-16T11:44:32.407+01:00Fair and secular ayatollahsThe title for this post could have been <i>Fair oversight authorities.</i><br />
<br />
Mike Hubank naively asks in a <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/a-slippery-slope-to-human-germline-modification-1.13358#">Nature</a> comment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If a woman wants a genetically related child, and I suggest most would, given the choice, why shouldn't she choose that option? As there is no indication at this point that the procedure is dangerous, then it's up to her to balance the risks and benefits.</blockquote>
Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, past president of the Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics, replies:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I don't think that a woman should bear the burden of responsibility to evaluate the health risks of reproductive technologies to her child. This would be unfair to her. This is rather a task for oversight authorities in that field of medical practice.</blockquote>
Both comments are on an article by Marcy Darnovsky (<i>A slippery slope to human germline modification</i>) against mitochondrial replacement as a means for women with mitochondrial diseases to have healthy children. She claims that her opinions are shared by others whom she calls "secular bioethicists". Secular bioethicism - that's a nice name for a religion.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-75604442662439617862014-01-08T23:38:00.000+01:002014-01-08T23:38:01.409+01:00Biodiversity value and the beauty of honest thinkingIn <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.004">The value of biodiversity: a humbling analysis</a>, Mark Vellend reviews Donald S. Maier's book <i>What's So Good about Biodiversity? A Call for Better Reasoning about Nature's Value</i>, and writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In particular, the fact that we started with a conclusion (biodiversity is valuable), and subsequently sought scientific support for it, should prompt serious introspection concerning the degree to which our biases have colored our conclusions. Maier's diagnosis of our arguments concerning biodiversity is one of ‘culturally conditioned, uncritical acceptance and unhealthy disciplinary inbreeding’ resulting in a serious case of ‘confirmation bias’. Not only have our biases colored our conclusions, argues Maier, but they have also led to ‘tacit agreement among colleagues not to rock the boat of bad reasoning – perhaps out of fear that there is no other way to defend nature and its value’.</blockquote>
<br />Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-76422589408216725332014-01-06T15:41:00.000+01:002015-02-02T18:45:06.073+01:00Silly investors and climate changeIn <i>A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014</i>, published in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.11.004">Trends in Ecology and Evolution</a>, William J. Sutherland and coauthors write:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is an incompatibility between current stock market valuation of the fossil fuel industry, which is based on known and projected fuel reserves, and governmental commitments to prevent a rise in global average temperature of more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.</blockquote>
<div>
They share <a href="http://www.carbontracker.org/wastedcapital">Carbon Tracker</a> and Nicholas Stern's concern about the fortunes of investors: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[F]ossil fuel reserves already far exceed the carbon budget to avoid global warming of 2°C, but in spite of this, [energy firms] spent $674 billion last year to find and develop new potentially stranded assets. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision. The report [<a href="http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf">Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets</a>] raises serious questions as to the ability of the financial system to act on industry-wide long term risk, since currently the only measure of risk is performance against industry benchmarks.” Professor Lord Stern.</blockquote>
<div>
So Stern, Carbon Tracker and Sutherland and coauthors are worried that non-smart investors dominate the valuation of stock and bonds of energy companies, and that future political regulation of emissions will bankrupt them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there is another way to view the incompatibility between current stock valuation and future emission cuts. The fact that investors - the people who put their money where their mouth is - are betting on the value of fossil fuel reserves "raises serious questions as to" the willingness of voters to substantially reduce their emissions.</div>
Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-10347070316439413932013-12-19T10:20:00.000+01:002013-12-19T10:36:46.653+01:00Will mainstream economics look like ecological economics and literary criticism?After attending Robert Shiller's Nobel lecture, as mainstream an event as you can get, <a href="http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com.es/2013/12/three-nobel-lectures-and-rhetoric-of.html">John Cochrane</a> reaches this conclusion:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I realized just how deep and audacious Bob's project is. He is telling us to abandon the "scientific" pretense. He wants us to adopt a literary style, where we look at the world, are inspired by psychology, and write interpretive prose as he has done. When he says that the definition of a bubble is a fad, he isn't being sneaky and avoiding the argument. He means exactly what he says and wants us to think and write this way too. A bubble, to Bob, is defined as any time that he, writing about it, informed by psychology, and reading newspapers, thinks a "fad" is going on. And he invites us to think and write like that too. A model is, to Bob, wrapped up in one person's judgement and not an objective machine. If I complain that this is ex-post story telling, he might say sure, stop pretending to be physics, write ex-post stories. If I complain that there are no rules and that this is no better than "the gods are angry," he might say, no, read psychology not ancient theology, and the rules are you have to couch your story telling in their terms. He does not want us to try to construct models, either psychological or rational, that make quantitative predictions.</blockquote>
Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-75522096410354747252013-12-12T20:19:00.000+01:002013-12-12T20:19:47.220+01:00Hyperbole and green platitudes<a href="http://conservationbytes.com/2013/12/04/biowealth-all-creatures-great-and-small/">CJA Bradshaw</a> asks for opinions on a book chapter he has written (<i>Biowealth: all creatures great and small</i>, available <a href="http://epress.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/whole1.pdf">here</a>).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It’s not hyperbole, naïveté or green platitudes – all people depend absolutely on every other species. </blockquote>
It's hyperbole and it's a green platitude.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For instance, consider the very air we breathe. Nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by plants and much of that by marine algae. Yet worldwide we treat oceans like giant toilets and cut down forest blocks every year that, together, equal the size of Tasmania. [...]</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Without biodiversity we are poor. With it we are ‘biorich’.</blockquote>
We make decisions at the margin. It's not that we have either intact forests and clean oceans or no oxygen. Or that we are either "biorich" or "biopoor". Relevant decisions are about sacrificing a bit of oxygen or a bit of biodiversity for a bit of other valuable things, and about good quantitative arguments in one direction or the other. Hyperboles, metaphors and self-loathing do not make good quantitative arguments.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-57477538633345821602013-07-20T19:47:00.000+02:002013-12-19T10:22:29.050+01:00Population policy and coercionIn <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12091/full">Critical need for modification of U.S. population policy</a>, published in <i>Conservation Biology</i>, <a href="http://biopolitical.blogspot.com.es/2007/05/macho-men-against-immigrants-and.html">Stuart H. Hurlbert</a> offers six "ideas that might be considered in the development of a coherent population policy."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
None involve moving in the direction of policies that would be coercive or violate the civil rights of individuals.</blockquote>
Hurlbert calls his favorite civil rights "the" civil rights. And he needs to specify they are the civil rights of individuals because he thinks that nations, to which he attributes feelings and thoughts, have rights too. But I don't want to focus on his philosophy of rights or his nationalism, but on coercion, which is a much easier matter. Despite his promise, three of his proposals increase coercion.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Annual legal immigration has been more than 5 times greater over the past decade than it was from 1930 to 1970. No approximate estimate of an optimal U.S. population is needed to conclude that gradual reduction of immigration rates to the low to moderate ones that prevailed during much of the 20th century should begin soon. Without this reduction any national population policy will remain chaotic and lead to one environmental, economic, and social crisis after another.</blockquote>
The present immigration policy of the U.S. is coercive and a policy of reducing immigration rates is even more coercive. These policies are coercive both to those U.S. citizens who want to hire, or lease a home to, or have a romantic or whatever other peaceful relationship with, a foreigner on U.S. soil and to the foreign people who would accept those relationships but can't because of the law.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why not establish a mature mom bonus that would give, say, $3000 to any woman who by her 22nd birthday had not yet had a child.</blockquote>
This is a policy that coercively takes $3000 from another person or persons. If the $3000 were voluntary donations then it wouldn't be a policy.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On both ethical and self-interest grounds, the United States would do well to contribute more generously to international family-planning efforts.</blockquote>
Again, if the contribution is voluntary it is not a policy. If it is a policy, it is coercive on innocent taxpayers.<br />
<br />
Another of his proposals, changing the income tax credit per child, does not increase coercion. And the remaining two, eliminating government welfare checks to families based on the number of children and removing religious doctrine from contraceptive legislation, would actually decrease coercion.<br />
<br />
Being right about coercion 50% of the time is enough to get published in <i>Conservation Biology</i>.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-24115621404669180232013-07-16T12:08:00.000+02:002013-11-11T18:21:18.089+01:00How Spain got its unemploymentOf all developed countries, Spain has the most cyclic and (most of the time) the highest unemployment, and the largest proportion of workers on contracts of limited duration (with their associated low productivity and low wages). This is due to our peculiar and perverse system of collective bargaining. The problems arising from this system are exacerbated by the high labor taxes that penalize work, the generous unemployment benefits that reward unemployment, the high cost of firing permanent workers (including severance payments set by law, and lawyer fees and other costs related to the judicial oversight of dismissals), and strict limits on the concatenation of temporary contracts that lower productivity and thus wages. Other countries also have terrible labor laws. But why are Spain's labor laws the most terrible of all?<br />
<br />
Because Spanish voters want them. A recent <a href="http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/Presentacionvalueswordwidel.pdf">poll</a> compared opinions in Spain to those in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Spaniards show the lowest support for a "market economy" (page 30 of the report). Overall in the ten countries a minority say that the government must control wages (29% of respondents) and ensure that the unemployed enjoy a "dignified" quality of life (39%). In Spain the respective proportions are 51% and 75%. Spain is the only country where a majority say that "wages must be more equal, even if this means that workers who put less effort and workers who put more effort earn similar amounts."<br />
<br />
The following chart relates the proportion of respondents in each country saying that wages must be more equal and the unemployment rate in that country:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpAImZ2AviJceJ65DSCZbk4SbAvm2aPg8tIP4k_1Ia0Snxo1P1TzLZJnmv3_LoVcsFtqGHBaT7WgHShnI5noFG9uDfDRGS8TiB07aMmEX4gIQiZougsJTvNfeiwFUgHP-T_06SFA/s1600/chart_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpAImZ2AviJceJ65DSCZbk4SbAvm2aPg8tIP4k_1Ia0Snxo1P1TzLZJnmv3_LoVcsFtqGHBaT7WgHShnI5noFG9uDfDRGS8TiB07aMmEX4gIQiZougsJTvNfeiwFUgHP-T_06SFA/s1600/chart_1.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The upper right dot corresponds to Spain. Spain is also the only country where a majority of respondents say that unemployment is the biggest problem in their country. Spanish respondents attribute the responsibility of their current crisis to the typical scapegoats (banks and politicians) more often, and to citizens and worker unions less often, than the average respondent of the ten countries. Spaniards are less favorable to making labor markets more flexible as a way to get out of the crisis than the average respondent of the ten countries, and more favorable to raising taxes to high-earning workers (page 42). Unfortunately, the report does not detail the numbers for each country.</div>
<br />
So, according to the poll, Spaniards ask for labor laws controlling wages and making them more equal, get unemployment as a result and believe that unemployment is the biggest problem in Spain. I want to add another bit of irony to the situation, and it doesn't come from this poll. Since the outset of our present crisis, there has been an increase in the number of Spaniards moving to northern Europe to get a job. They are leaving behind the labor laws they voted for and seeking prosperity in the countries that rejected those laws. Spanish news outlets report that Spanish emigrants are being exploited by wild west labor laws and greedy capitalists in Germany and elsewhere.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
For the data in the chart there is a Spearman correlation of 0.7. A Spearman correlation is particularly suitable for this data because it doesn't give special weight to the outlying numbers for Spain. In other words, 0.7 is not an artifact of Spain's bizarreness. If the countries in the dataset were independent, which they are not for geographical reasons, and if there were no relationship between opinion on wages and unemployment rate, the probability of getting this number would be smaller than 2.5%.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-23986184821901916222013-06-18T11:32:00.000+02:002013-06-18T11:32:12.225+02:00Prosperity, opera and public funding of R&D<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The argument, advanced at the [annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February 2013], that a heavily indebted and politically dysfunctional United States can shortly resume its twentieth-century growth pattern, if only it keeps investing in research and development (R&D), strains credulity. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a session devoted to the connections between basic research funding and economic growth, no one produced a single paper or reference to support this argument. [C]uriosity-driven research on an industrial scale is a relatively recent invention, and I would suggest that it may be a sign — rather than the cause — of a successful economy.</blockquote>
Colin Macilwain wrote this and I respect <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/the-unlikely-wisdom-of-chairman-mao-1.12589">Nature</a> for publishing it.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-91732458981590148552013-06-13T10:57:00.000+02:002013-10-11T11:04:24.288+02:00Evidence-based walking on waterWalking on water would be convenient for crossing rivers, fishing, watching seabirds, trekking throughout the seas and rescuing drowning people. A friend of mine proposes an evidence-based program to achieve it.<br />
<br />
The program would consist of trying small steps on water in different conditions, and building up on the successes. For example, we can try walking on waters of different colors. If we can walk a little bit on bluish waters, but not on brownish ones, we should focus our future efforts on bluish waters. And so on.<br />
<br />
I have told him that what we already know about gravity, the relative density of water and the human body and similar things indicates that it is impractical to even try. He doesn't listen. He insists on gathering new evidence.<br />
<br />
Fixing social problems by government action would be convenient. To get there, a recent editorial in <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/look-after-the-pennies-1.12792">Nature</a> advocates an evidence-based program.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[T]he [USA] administration has laid out a blueprint to implement evidence-based decision-making throughout the government — in effect, bringing the methods of science to bear on policy.</blockquote>
Thousands of years of government experience and almost 150 of <i>Nature</i>'s existence have witnessed countless government-led assaults on human life and decency including, among others, wars, genocides and famines. But it is better late than never to begin subjecting policy to evidence and scientific reasoning.<br />
<br />
However, I am afraid that what we already know about the problems of collective action indicates that governments will never really try - the marketing rhetoric of the USA administration notwithstanding. <i>Nature</i> mentions just one of these problems:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Everyone favours government effectiveness as a concept. But every existing programme is also someone’s livelihood. When those judged ineffective — by whatever measure — are cut or consolidated, the protests and the lobbying are fierce. If officials can resist that pressure, evidence-based policy initiatives could help to bring about a much-needed shift in the inflamed fiscal debate, from ideology to pragmatism.</blockquote>
If water can resist our feet...Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-22285453958528508642013-05-21T12:36:00.000+02:002013-05-22T09:25:24.778+02:00Many people but few caged miceIn my <a href="http://biopolitical.blogspot.com.es/2013/05/morals-and-markets.html">previous post</a> I discussed the study <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6133/707.full">Morals and markets</a>, by Armin Falk and Nora Szech, about the choice between ten euros or the life of a mouse. I will now ask what Partha S. Dasgupta and Paul R. Ehrlich would choose, based on their paper <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6130/324.full">Pervasive externalities at the population, consumption, and environment nexus</a>, published three weeks before Falk and Szech's also in <i>Science</i>.<br />
<br />
Both papers are framed around the problem of externalities. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality">Wikipedia</a> defines externality as "a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit." I thought everyone else defined externality the same way. Not so. Falk and Szech include "detrimental working conditions for workers" and "child labor" as examples of negative externalities. They are not, according to the common definition, because "workers" and "children" accept the costs of working in exchange for wages. And Dasgupta and Ehrlich include fosterage, which is the practice, common in west Africa, of rearing the children of relatives and friends. Fosterage is not a negative externality of human reproduction, according to the common definition, because foster parents voluntarily accept rearing the children - they ask for it, actually.<br />
<br />
The level of an activity that generates negative externalities is higher than is socially optimal. Thus, following their incorrect depiction of fosterage, Dasgupta and Ehrlich claim that there is excessive human reproduction in west Africa. Tellingly, they fail to mention the government subsidies to schooling and children health care in the USA and elsewhere that do contribute to excessive reproduction. And they amply discuss that each person, by degrading productive resources and polluting the environment, inflicts negative externalities on everybody else, but not the fact that people also generate positive externalities, for example by creating new resources for everyone to use productively. After adding up negative externalities and ignoring positive ones, they conclude that there are too many people around. They suggest that Africans spend less on "expensive wedding ceremonies and birth celebrations" and more on condoms ("the unmet need for family planning is substantial").<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
In Falk and Szech's experimental study, participants chose between money and saving the life of a mouse. A succesful trade between the experimenters and a study subject involved a true negative externality whose victim was the unwilling mouse. Not trading money for the mouse resulted in the mouse being saved. "As a consequence of our experiment, many mice that would otherwise have been killed [gassed] right away were allowed to live for roughly 2 years [in an appropriate, enriched environment, and at a cost]." And Falk and Szech reach a verdict: "There exists a basic consensus that harming others in an unjustified and intentional way is considered as immoral." They consider that allowing mice to live for two years in an enriched environment is better than killing them.<br />
<br />
But they fail to mention that keeping mice in an appropriate, enriched environment for two years generates negative externalities. Other organisms will be killed to feed the mice. Subjects who decide to save the taxpayers who fund Falk and Szech's research ten euros are making them pay the expenses of keeping the mouse alive for two years, and are harming the unwilling organisms used to feed it. Furthermore, they are generating environmental externalities associated with rearing those other organisms. Whether this is morally preferable to killing the mouse right away is not clear to me. Is it morally worse to kill the mouse than it is to kill the other organisms? Is having more mice and less tropical forest morally better than the opposite is? Would Dasgupta and Ehrlich, who think that there are too many humans, choose to let the mouse enjoy the gift of life for two more years, at the expense of the lives of other organisms, or would they choose the ten euros?Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-27605408510059732432013-05-16T11:17:00.000+02:002013-05-16T11:17:57.671+02:00Morals and marketsIn a new experimental paper published in <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6133/707.full">Science</a>, Armin Falk and Nora Szech claim that "markets erode moral values" and that, as a result, "we as a society have to think about where markets are appropriate—and where they are not." In this regard, they say that "discussion has arisen about the appropriateness" of trading slaves, religious indulgences, company stock, risky financial derivatives or goods that involve detrimental conditions for workers, child labor, suffering of animals or environmental damage. Although their experiments do not show that markets erode moral values, other observations do. And I think that such moral "erosion" is a good thing.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Falk and Szech made several interesting experiments, but I will summarize only the three main treatments. In the "individual treatment" subjects chose between receiving 10 euros from the experimenter or saving the life of a mouse. According to Falk and Szech, this choice involved moral values. Half of the people chose the money. In the "bilateral market" pairs of subjects got money from the experimenter to bargain over prices to save the mouse and in the "multilateral market" each subject bargained with several others and witnessed the outcomes of trades between other subjects. In the latter two treatments more than two thirds of participants decided to kill the mouse for 10 or fewer euros. So, subjects became more callous about the life of a mouse when bargaining in markets with other subjects than they did when selling it to the experimenter. A possible mechanism for the difference is that observing other people trade the lives of mice for low prices makes it more acceptable to kill a mouse for a few euros (if other people kill a mouse for four euros then it must be alright for me to do the same). Other possible mechanisms are that each participant feels less responsible for the lives of mice when part of a larger market where other people are killing mice and that each participant focuses more on the bargaining dynamics and so pays less attention to the moral implications of his actions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Falk and Szech write as if the "individual treatment" consisted of an individual decision outside of a market, while the other treatments replicated market decisions. So they conclude that markets erode moral values. However, the "individual treatment" is a market transaction between a subject and the experimenter. So, the difference is not between markets and non-markets but between markets with bargaining and multiple sellers and buyers and a market with no bargaining and a single seller (the subject) and a single buyer (the experimenter).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, I have no problem accepting the idea that when participating in free markets people become more sensitive to prices and less sensitive to their moral intuitions. Or, in other words, that moral choices are more price-sensitive in free markets, and more so in larger markets. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Does this justify forbidding certain markets or trades? No, it doesn't. There is no reason to presume that prior moral intuitions are morally better than the choices made in markets. It seems to me that relaxed moral standards in global commercial markets are preferable to the stricter moral intuitions people express in non-commercial contexts. Some widespread moral intuitions are that foreigners, people of other races and religious beliefs, homosexuals, big corporations and the wealthy are evil. If free markets erode these moral values, as they seem to do, then I applaud free markets. Some people have moral reservations about trading with women, children or people earning low incomes or working in extremely unhealthy conditions. These moral reservations result in more misery for women, children and poor workers and entrepreneurs. I welcome their erosion.</div>
Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-45295658150929653132013-05-09T13:00:00.001+02:002013-05-09T13:00:44.853+02:00Cleaning the environment by publishing slogans in NatureIn between the title (<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/china-s-citizens-must-act-to-save-their-environment-1.12939">China's citizens must act to save their environment</a>) and the closing words ("The air of the people should be protected — by the people, for the people") of his article in <i>Nature</i>, Qiang Wang tells us that "the voice of society is growing," that the hashtag "I don't want to be a human vacuum cleaner" attracted more than 1.7 million comments (in Sina Weibo, because the government blocks Twitter), that "local protests have successfully blocked the construction of individual polluting projects," that "car ownership is burgeoning," and that people in Beijing buy a second car with an even plate number to drive on the days when the first car with an odd number is not allowed to.<br />
<br />
The article's subtitle is "The country's air-pollution crisis offers a lesson in the power of civil society." Wang doesn't say exactly what lesson.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-33606922369138504572013-04-10T13:34:00.000+02:002013-04-10T13:34:33.774+02:00Very compelling moral imperatives<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If it's clear that we exterminated a species, I think we have a moral imperative to do something about it," says <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/19.full">Michael Archer</a> [talking about creating a passenger pigeon out of DNA from stuffed specimens].</blockquote>
In the same vein, says I: "My uncle burnt his family's book collection, so I think I have a moral imperative to gather some of the ashes and write a blog post."Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-52037957969111491892013-04-04T09:47:00.000+02:002013-04-04T09:47:13.366+02:00Interview on the radioEsteban Fernández Moreira has inverviewed me on his radio program <a href="http://www.facebook.com/Actuaciencia?group_id=0">Actuaciencia</a>. We talked about environmental problems and how people react to them. The podcast is <a href="http://www.ivoox.com/programa-51-entrevista-a-marcelino-fuentes-audios-mp3_rf_1896334_1.html">here</a> (in Spanish).Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-10945063252500747272013-03-31T14:12:00.002+02:002013-06-10T17:23:59.423+02:00Academic environmentalism and moviesThe following quote about macroeconomics, attributed by <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/highlights_from_4.html">David Henderson</a> to Axel Leijonhufvud, reminds me of the planetary environmentalist <a href="http://biopolitical.blogspot.com.es/2012/07/macroecology-of-sustainability-and-peak.html">stuff</a> published in scientific journals:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Macroeconomics seems to have taken a turn very similar to movies: more and more simple-minded plots but ever more mind-boggling special effects.</blockquote>
Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-19035642441442429022013-02-28T11:18:00.000+01:002013-02-28T11:18:54.735+01:00Peak shale oil in Nature magazine<i>Nature</i>, the somewhat scientific journal, has just published a comment on shale gas and oil (<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7437/full/494307a.html">Energy: A reality check on the shale revolution</a>) by peak-oiler J. David Hughes.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[P]roduction is likely to be below the exuberant forecasts from industry and government.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[The US Energy Information Administration's] predictions are wildly optimistic given the fundamentals of producing these hydrocarbons.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[T]he industry practice of fitting hyperbolic curves to data on declining productivity, and inferring lifetimes of 40 years or more, is too optimistic.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[I]ndustry must recognize that shale gas and oil are not cheap or inexhaustible [...]</blockquote>
Wait. This sounds <a href="http://biopolitical.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/peak-oil-in-nature-magazine.html">familiar</a>.<br />
<br />Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-1087453633558984352013-01-22T12:29:00.002+01:002013-01-22T15:57:22.622+01:00Climate change, child abuse and nightmares<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118">Richard Dawkins</a> argues that religious indoctrination of children amounts to child abuse, and that child mental abuse - the instillation of irrational fear and feelings of guilt - is more painful and long lasting than some types of physical abuse.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Perversely marketed in a pseudo-scientific wrapper, the environmentalist religion shares both the sado-masochistic - sin, guilt, and hell - and the self-congratulating - liturgy, communion, and salvation - ingredients of Christianity. Poor children.</blockquote>
I wrote this <a href="http://biopolitical.blogspot.com.es/2007/12/environmental-child-abuse.html">five years ago</a>. In these five years my now almost 13-year old son has asked me now and then about religion, politics and other aspects of collective human behavior. I have tried to answer truthfully to his questions. Sometimes I have given him more details than he had asked for. But I have never told him the scary details. I could have told him vivid stories about the horrors of religion, socialism, nationalism, racism or environmentalism. I have never had. I have tried to convey the irrationality of those beliefs while avoiding the terrifying details. And I have also told him about the good things the collective behavior of people has brought us and will keep bringing us in the future.<br />
<br />
He has asked me about spiders and sharks much more often than about politics and religion. Given his views about those poor guys, I have always been reassuring. Still, there was the occasional nightmare. And before riding his sail to windsurf one day this last fall, he again wanted to talk with me and our instructor about "the sharks".<br />
<br />
This is Corey Bradshaw in a blog post titled <a href="http://conservationbytes.com/2013/01/21/scaring-our-children/">Scaring our children with the future</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why is this happening? Why are people not doing anything about it? Why are there so many stupid people in the world continuing to emit greenhouse gases without considering my future (again, highly paraphrased from 5-year old syntax)?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You know, I couldn’t honestly answer, because these are the same questions I’ve been asking myself for years. Do you know what a 5-year old does when contemplating an uncertain and dangerous future that seems to have no solution? She cries. She has nightmares, and her naïve mind can’t comprehend why anyone would let this happen to her, or why her parents can’t spare her that fate. Her worst episodes lasted about 2 weeks, but the subject is brought up now again and again. I can only comfort her by saying that, “I’m trying”.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Some parents might think I was too forthright and that I should have protected her innocence until she was at least a little older. Bullshit, I say. This is bloody scary stuff and if the youngest generation doesn’t understand this, then we have no hope at all. We need to inundate schools – from primary to university – with the mind-blowing reality of what we’re doing to our only home.</blockquote>
I want to comment on only two of Bradshaw's mistakes, and leave aside the more obvious, sad ones. First, as it seems that Bradshaw doesn't cope very well with the concept and full practical and moral implications of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality">externalities</a>, I don't expect him to properly educate a 5-year old child on them. So, the prognosis on the comprehension issue is pretty bad. (Not than I am any better at that. I can't get my university students to correctly apply the concept even after theoretical analysis, numerical and nonnumerical examples related and unrelated to their everyday lives, and playing cards with them.)<br />
<br />
Second, in the improbable case that welfare deteriorates in Australia, where Bradshaw lives, and other places, it is still in the hands of our childs' generation to overcome xenophobia and allow emigration to places like Europe where conditions will almost certainly <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/27/1011612108.abstract">improve</a>.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-44876973045448668392013-01-20T17:01:00.002+01:002013-05-20T17:36:45.564+02:00The future of Ecological EconomicsBlake Anderson and Michael M'Gonigle accuse the journal <i>Ecological Economics</i> of being too mainstream (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.009">Does ecological economics have a future?: Contradiction and reinvention in the age of climate change</a>). They say that <i>Ecological Economics</i> has become dominated by "neoclassical methodologies" that justify economic growth and capitalism and that conflict with the field's founding vision of a no-growth, sustainable society. They advocate that the field and its flagship journal should instead focus on "critical analysis".<br />
<br />
Anderson and M'Gonigle are right in their diagnosis of the journal. Much of what is published in <i>Ecological Economics</i> (or in <i>Ecology and Society</i>) is standard environmental economics that follows the scientific method and studies what people do and its implications for environmental policy, while paying lip service to ideological dogma by using vacuous "sustainability" (or "resilience") language. I also think that the scientific knowledge of human behavior, and nature in general, leads to the conclusion that human affairs are better served by private, competitive enterprise and individual choice than by forced collectivism. And that when given the choice people strive for a better life and not for a steady-state. And that this doesn't necessarily bring the end of the world. Therefore, I agree with Anderson and M'Gonigle that standard science, as it appears in many papers of <i>Ecological Economics</i>, is bound to contradict the founding principles of Ecological Economics.<br />
<br />
I agree with Anderson and M'Gonigle that to preserve the founding principles of Ecological Economics, Ecological Economists and their journal should focus on "critical analysis". In this context "critical" means anti-capitalist. And "analysis" apparently consists of making discourses about other discourses. For the purpose of "analysis" a discourse, narrative or text can be produced obviously by people but also by such entities as capitalism, the South, the North, wealth, poverty, democracy, neoliberalism, money, power, diasporas, markets, globalization, discrimination, gender, machines, cultures or nature. Even people and these other entities can be interpreted as narratives themselves. Focusing on "analysis" avoids the empirical distractions that might question the founding principles of Ecological Economics.<br />
<br />
It might be said that "critical analysis" is already the matter of many humanities journals. For example, Anderson and M'Gonigle take inspiration from papers published in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1536-7150">The American Journal of Economics and Sociology</a>, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcns20/current">Capitalism Nature Socialism</a>, <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=eur">European Journal of Sociology</a>, <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/geoforum/">Geoforum</a>, <a href="http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/">The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy</a>, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cnpe20/current">New Political Economy</a>, <a href="http://www2.lse.ac.uk/internationalRelations/Journals/millenn/Home.aspx">Millennium: Journal of International Studies</a>, <a href="http://phg.sagepub.com/">Progress in Human Geography</a>, <a href="http://sdi.sagepub.com/">Security Dialogue</a> and <a href="http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv#.UPvlLZ636G4">Socialist Register</a>. But there may be no practical "limits to growth" in discourses. And, as a plus for Ecological Economists, "critical analysis" might even absorb some entropy. So, there is probably a niche for a critical analytical <i>Ecological Economics</i>.<br />
<br />
All this is more or less true, at least on "spaceship Earth" and "in the age of climate change." But let me point out some things that are not true.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Neoclassicism rejects the notion that there are absolute limits to growth, putting its faith in the ability to address temporary resource scarcities through rising prices that change economic behaviors, technological innovations that allow for greater efficiencies, substitutions away from declining resources, and so on. The field points to the history of ever-increasing global production and wealth despite the ‘limits to growth’ debates of the 1970s (to which some early ecological economists were contributors).</blockquote>
Not true. Neoclassicism does not reject absolute limits to growth. Growth limits and practically unlimited growth are both compatible with neoclassical approaches. And "the field" hasn't pointed to anything, because "the field" can't argue. Only people can.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[...] Stern's chosen target [500 ppm CO2] still vastly exceeds the 350 ppm level that the scientific community, including Costanza (2009b), has settled on as necessary for stabilization.</blockquote>
There is no such settlement.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Economic growth is an imperative for the survival of capitalism.</blockquote>
Not true.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have experienced three decades of free market fundamentalism during which public understanding has been reduced to ideology extolling markets while government agencies have been denigrated and their budgets shrunk.</blockquote>
Not true.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Steady-state] markets exchange tomatoes for wheat not for profit but to provide food for both parties (a tomato sandwich) and, in so doing, to support the livelihoods of both farmers.</blockquote>
Not true. We profit from eating food (that costs less to produce than it benefits the person who eats it).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[In modern capitalism] one does much better buying tomatoes not for a sandwich but to turn around and sell them again for more money than one had initially.</blockquote>
Not true, unless one is a tomato middleman.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Capitalism prizes the middleman and the ‘value-added’ processor; its momentum ends with final consumption and it is positively threatened by the self-provision and thrift that eschews exchange per se.</blockquote>
It would be great if a tomato were still valuable after its final consumption. But the bad news affect capitalism and its alternatives alike. Self-provision and thrift are, like most things, good when exercised in moderation. Too much or too little threaten well-being in all realistic systems.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[M]arkets driven by capital needs are designed for one end, to seek returns to capital, that is, to maximize ‘exchange values’ that can grow the quantum of capital. [...] No relationship needs to exist between increasing welfare (‘use values’) and increasing capital (‘exchange values’).</blockquote>
True for some markets designed and enforced by governments or mafias. Not true for peaceful, competitive markets.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
These markets must grow by their nature because the point of any investment of capital is to return more capital to it [...]</blockquote>
Not true. Capital returns depend on earnings, not on market growth.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[G]reenhouse gas emissions keep going up—<i>except when economic activity itself contracts</i>.</blockquote>
Not true for developed countries.<br />
<br />Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-18869522844809386312013-01-11T11:47:00.000+01:002013-01-11T11:47:03.699+01:00Wisdom about mineral depletion in Nature magazineI am very happy to share this rare event. <i>Nature</i> has published a bit of wisdom on the myth of mineral depletion. In response to the - perhaps faked - worries of investor <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/491303a">Jeremy Grantham</a> about the depletion of phosphorus and potassium, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/493163b.html">Tim Worstall</a> patiently explains the difference between reserves and resources. Reserves are known mineral deposits that can be exploited at a profit given current prices. We deplete reserves and there is nothing scary about it. Higher prices act as incentives to find new deposits and develop novel, cheaper ways of exploiting them.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Resource', by contrast, denotes the amount of the same ore or element that is out there, with prior knowledge of roughly where it is, how much there is and how it might be extracted. Resources are transformed into reserves by spending money — when that is strictly necessary. Every generation exhausts its reserves of almost all minerals, because the tendency is to convert only enough resources into reserves to last for a generation.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Resources of phosphate and potassium fertilizers are sufficient for thousands of years of current usage.</blockquote>
<i>Nature</i> then publishes a reply by Grantham, where he just repeats his worries.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Only about 0.5 parts per million of phosphorus occur in phosphate rock deposits that can be extracted economically, and the richest deposits are rapidly being depleted.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The price of phosphate rock has risen 4.3-fold in 10 years. The 'big agriculture' style of US farming is demanding ever-increasing quantities of phosphates. This must change, or millions more people will be priced out of the fertilizer and grain markets.</blockquote>
I think he just fakes not getting it.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-60428677391149640762012-12-27T13:32:00.000+01:002012-12-27T13:55:45.405+01:00Ecosystem services, environmental ethics, preferences and wordsSusan says she prefers to measure things in yards. John says he prefers to use meters. Peter says he doesn't like to measure things at all. Mary watches the actions of Susan, John and Peter and concludes that they are not truthful about their preferences. So, Susan prefers to use yards instead of meters but prefers to say otherwise. One can call this <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Private-Truths-Public-Lies-Falsification/dp/0674707575/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271464089&sr=8-2">preference falsification</a>.<br />
<br />
Susan says she is worried about the ethical implications of measuring things in meters; John, about using yards; and Peter, about measuring things at all. Then Gary W. Luck and coauthors come along and say (in <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.12.4">Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept</a>, also available <a href="http://ires.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/12/Luck-et-al-2012-BioSci-ethical-considerns-of-on-ground-ES-applicns.pdf">here</a>) that a) the way we measure things or the possibility of measuring things at all or the use of the ecosystem services concept raise ethical concerns simply because Susan, John and Peter <i>say</i> they are ethically concerned, and b) these purported ethical concerns should guide environmental policy. The apparent naivete of their philosophy is funny, but a) "it has been suggested" that the paper is written in vague, insipid and verbose language, making for a less than pleasurable experience; b) "concerns have been raised" about the journal <i>Bioscience</i> publishing "what some authors interpret as" funny ideas instead of proper science; and c) this is how policy is actually carried out.<br />
<br />
The fact that people "raise ethical concerns" about self-interest, using nature to fulfill one's desires, comparing the costs and benefits of different options to make decisions, or the existence of disparities between rich and poor is something worth of study. But such purported concerns alone do not justify or proscribe any particular policy. If one is interested in the truth one should point out that those concerns are inconsistent with nearly all human behavior and therefore the result of sloppy thinking or downright hypocrisy. If one believes that in order to promote human (or universal, for that matter) well-being one should conceal or confound the truth then I insist that a scientific journal is not the right place for doing it and I, so to speak, raise ethical concerns.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-2631032080594844752012-12-18T17:24:00.000+01:002012-12-18T17:24:03.366+01:00Houston, we have a challenge and an opportunity<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Houston, we have a challenge, and this presents us with the opportunity to restore this capsule to a sustainable space vehicle for our return to Earth.</blockquote>
<div>
This is from <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.12.2">Four words that can make us cringe</a>, by Christopher F. D’Elia and Gene E. Likens. They decry the watered-down, lame, platitudinous, politically-correct language that pervades public discourse. I don't agree with everything they say but I share their attitude towards the greatest of human inventions - language.</div>
Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687417.post-33947479785763862202012-12-04T17:48:00.000+01:002012-12-04T17:48:23.413+01:00Teleology forever<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Young children are inclined to see purpose in the natural world. Ask them why we have rivers, and they'll likely tell you that we have rivers so that boats can travel on them (an example of a "teleological explanation").</blockquote>
Thus a starts a recent <a href="http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/the-unscientific-thinking-that-forever.html">post</a> in one of my favorite blogs. And thus I started, back in September, the course I am currently teaching. Our drive to find purpose in others' actions to better predict them is so powerful that we can't help extend theories of mind to objects. This is not exclusive of children or uneducated people. The post I have just quoted reports that a lab study (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030399">Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default</a>) has found that teleological thinking "forever lingers in the minds of physics professors" and other science professionals, and it surfaces especially when they have little time to think.<br />
<br />
People and other organisms have objectives and usually act in ways that help them to achieve those objectives. Only organisms have objectives. Groups of organisms are not organisms and don't have objectives. Planned obsolescence, worker exploitation, Marxism, consumer manipulation, created needs, technology suppression, Gaia theory, and many other crackpot theories all rely on attributing purposes to groups of people or non-living objects like capitalism, industry, the financial sector, countries or the Earth.<br />
<br />
When we attribute intentions to inanimate objects we fail to correctly predict their "behavior," and make bad decisions along the way.Biopoliticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16045874185251304861noreply@blogger.com0