We need to do something!

[swansont]

I disagree with both the title of the thread and the OP.

 

People don't need to do "something", they need to do the "right thing". Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic classifies as doing "something", getting to the life boats is doing the "right thing". Too often in climate there is way too much emphasis on doing "some thing" rather than doing the "right thing".

 

As to a world run by scientists I have but one word "Eugenics". Science and politics don't mix because politics is essentially about morality, defined politically as "what the electorate will put up with". Science is amoral, it cares not whether we like or dislike the findings, the facts simply are. If the "facts" are based on a misthought pseudoscience, then the ramifications are terrible, as history has shown.

 

Indeed. Too many actions fall under the politician's syllogism (Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.)

 

And I also agree science can tell you if something can be done, but not if something should be done. However, this conflates science and scientists. Science is amoral, but that does not mean scientists are. There are politicians who are scientists, after all.

[JohnB]

We've talked about this before. Oz still has a realistic understanding of what "conservative" means.

 

Yes. Conservative down here seems to be roughly an extreme right wing Democrat.

 

I've always said that third world countries don't need more electricity, they need more efficient appliances. If we spent a tenth of what it would cost for hydro-electric dams and gave every household on the grid a modern refrigerator and a washing machine, we'd solve their power problems AND gain the trust and admiration of the populace.

 

The thing is that this idea is simply wrong. In many places they don't have a grid. Have a look at these percentages from the IEA. By all means hand over refrigerators and washing machines to Zambia, but 91% of the population don't have anything to plug them in to.

 

Here is a list of electricity generation per capita by nation.

 

How long will that refrigerator and washing machine run in Chad where the generation is 10.116 kWh per person? They need to increase power generation by 200x (not 200%, 200x) just to get to the level of Mexico. If they generate 6x as much power they reach the level of Haiti. Unless you have some absolutely new and mind bogglingly efficient refrigerators and washing machines, they need more power.

 

In many places there simply isn't a grid to disperse the power and even if there was, there isn't enough power being generated to do more than give each house 1 electric light.

 

Great Britain is already starting to suffer energy shortages while generating 6,104.359 kWh per person. While 6,000 kWh might sound like a lot, it's not all for personal consumption. It runs the industry and the electric trains and the street lights. The third world needs to brought up to at least the level of Britain before you can start talking about "efficiency" in any meaningful sense.

 

Australians are told and I'm sure Americans are too that we use too much power, some 11,000-12,000 kWh per capita and we should reduce it. But you and I don't actually use that much, part of our "per capita" share runs, for example, the Aluminium industry. According to the USGS, America produced 3.1 million tons of Aluminium in 2010 and Australia produced some 2 million tons. Bauxite production requires some 260 kWh per ton for production, recycling and the production of the metal is around 12,000 kWh per ton. Remember this the next time someone says Americans should cut their energy usage. The only way you cut it in any meaningful way is to shut down your industrial base. Anything else is a drop in the bucket.

 

Also, beware the idea that all the crazy is only on one side. From down here everything you say about your right is looks pretty true but at the same time the American left is so full of its own righteousness that it views any who disagree as either intentionally evil or mentally incompetent. This too is a form of crazy.

 

BTW, you didn't answer any of my questions about which "right" things you wanted done.

 

Swansont, I totally agree. Science is amoral, individual scientists can be either moral or immoral.

[Greg Boyles]

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

 

Not quite correct. Only idiotic scientists would have such an argument.

 

The argument among politicians would be over whether the mountain even exists.

 

Indeed. Too many actions fall under the politician's syllogism (Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.)

 

And I also agree science can tell you if something can be done, but not if something should be done. However, this conflates science and scientists. Science is amoral, but that does not mean scientists are. There are politicians who are scientists, after all.

 

I reckon there should be some sort of global science union that all scientists are encouraged to join.

 

The union would then wield political power by determining which government projects members will cooperate with. If individual members go outside the union policy then they should be ineternally disciplined.

 

If it works rather effectively for political parties, to keep most members pulling in a given policy direction, then why should it not also work for the scientific community.

 

Rather than the politicians always running on the assumption that technology/science will always provide fixes no matter how badly they f$%& up since the scientific community is rather individualistic, the union could say "hang on a minute, we don't think this is a good idea for the long term so we are not going to cooperate with you to implement this in the first place".

 

Various unions have implemented 'green bans', why can't the science community also have a political arm that can also implement green bans.

[JustinW]

Various unions have implemented 'green bans', why can't the science community also have a political arm that can also implement green bans.

 

It would be pretty difficult to wield any kind of power. Scientists work to better our way of life and to further our knowledge of what is, but if they go on strike would it have a immediate effect? That would be the only way a union can wield any power. For so many to get together and say "this is how it's going to be or we won't do it". You get enough people that have an immediate effect on a company, or in this case the government, then they'll listen. But until that happens I don't think a scientific union will be able to demand policy. Maybe it would be better to think about influence rather than allowance or demand.

[Greg Boyles]

It would be pretty difficult to wield any kind of power. Scientists work to better our way of life and to further our knowledge of what is, but if they go on strike would it have a immediate effect? That would be the only way a union can wield any power. For so many to get together and say "this is how it's going to be or we won't do it". You get enough people that have an immediate effect on a company, or in this case the government, then they'll listen. But until that happens I don't think a scientific union will be able to demand policy. Maybe it would be better to think about influence rather than allowance or demand.

 

My problem with the way the scientific community is at present is as follows..........

 

As I have said it is almost totally individualistic with no coordination and vetting of what is done. As you say it is amoral.

 

Pretty much all the environmental problems we have result directly from science and technology being misused or over used by politicians.

 

The response from the science community to the cries for help from idiot governments and naive general public is to implement more technology which inevitably gets over used or misused and leads to even bigger problems down the track.

 

Don't you think that scientists have some sort of moral obligation to say "no" to them sometimes? I think they damn well do.

 

An example - the erradication of malaria or AIDS etc. Do the scientists who develop and implement this sort of thing stop to consider the wider implications of doing this. The world is already grossly over populated. Do they consider what effect this will have on the long term well being of humanity when it exascerbates over population and causes large numbers of humans to suffer in other ways - starvation and genocide etc.

 

Should they not live up to their responsibilities to see that the reduction in death rate that they cause is compensated for by a reduction in birth rate.

 

The best that the science community has at present are ethics committies. But these are far to narrowly focused and rarely consider the long term and wider consequences of research.

But then scientists and ethics committies will give you the usual cop out that we hear from politicians all the time "it's not my problem".

 

Well maybe if there was a global science union then it would be their problem.

 

Who better to wield such power than the highly educated generally athiest scientific community. They are in the best position to have a global focus on human affairs even if they currently do not exercise it.

 

A good nucleus for the formation of such a global science union might be the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Rather than coming up with more ways to save water or generate new water from some other source to maintain the status quo in the Murray Darling Basin, they are advocating reduction in water allocations and winding back of the irrigated agriculture industry.

 

Nothing would give politicians and the general public a bigger wake up call than if scientists starting saying "sorry but we aint gonna help you maintain your status quo any more".

Edited December 23, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

I reckon there should be some sort of global science union that all scientists are encouraged to join.

 

The union would then wield political power by determining which government projects members will cooperate with. If individual members go outside the union policy then they should be ineternally disciplined.

 

If it works rather effectively for political parties, to keep most members pulling in a given policy direction, then why should it not also work for the scientific community.

 

Rather than the politicians always running on the assumption that technology/science will always provide fixes no matter how badly they f$%& up since the scientific community is rather individualistic, the union could say "hang on a minute, we don't think this is a good idea for the long term so we are not going to cooperate with you to implement this in the first place".

 

Various unions have implemented 'green bans', why can't the science community also have a political arm that can also implement green bans.

 

There's a flip side to consider. Science can tell you what your options are, but there are still political reasons that come into play. The obvious one is cost/benefit — we do put a de-facto limit on how much we are willing to spend to get a result, such as saving a life. US regulation values a life saved at around $6 million or so (depending on the agency).

[Greg Boyles]

There's a flip side to consider. Science can tell you what your options are, but there are still political reasons that come into play. The obvious one is cost/benefit — we do put a de-facto limit on how much we are willing to spend to get a result, such as saving a life. US regulation values a life saved at around $6 million or so (depending on the agency).

 

True.

 

So what is the cost/benefit of keeping millions more children alive that would otherwise die from malaria?

 

What is the cost/benefit of signficantly altering the ecological balance for human population in the third world?

 

This is a difficult question, especially if you are one with malaria, but it is a question that we avoid at the peril of the entire human race and western civilisation.

 

The question is very easy to answer in the west because, for various reasons, our fertility is very low and reducing death from disease has less of an ecological impact.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JustinW]

Not to mention the emotional stand point of the people. This is where politics has a part to play, instituting the will of the people.

 

An example - the erradication of malaria or AIDS etc. Do the scientists who develop and implement this sort of thing stop to consider the wider implications of doing this. The world is already grossly over populated. Do they consider what effect this will have on the long term well being of humanity when it exascerbates over population and causes large numbers of humans to suffer in other ways - starvation and genocide etc.

 

Should they not live up to their responsibilities to see that the reduction in death rate that they cause is compensated for by a reduction in birth rate.

 

The best that the science community has at present are ethics committies. But these are far to narrowly focused and rarely consider the long term and wider consequences of research.

But then scientists and ethics committies will give you the usual cop out that we hear from politicians all the time "it's not my problem".

It's not a bad idea though. for a global scientific committee to have a powerful influence and to give a credible incite to help form policy around the world. And why I only say influence is for the fact that science always has room for change, and may not always be best for the concideration of different people. By your quote above the scientific community would have the power to force the regulatation of births. I don't know if a people would go for that or if it is even ethically sound. It is arguable to say the least. But I agree with you to the point that a scientific body that can share and provide general consensus on a subject should have more influence on policy makers.

[Greg Boyles]

Not to mention the emotional stand point of the people. This is where politics has a part to play, instituting the will of the people.

 

 

It's not a bad idea though. for a global scientific committee to have a powerful influence and to give a credible incite to help form policy around the world. And why I only say influence is for the fact that science always has room for change, and may not always be best for the concideration of different people. By your quote above the scientific community would have the power to force the regulatation of births. I don't know if a people would go for that or if it is even ethically sound. It is arguable to say the least. But I agree with you to the point that a scientific body that can share and provide general consensus on a subject should have more influence on policy makers.

 

I guess the UN climate change panel is the beginnings of such a global scientific union. But agian it is very narrowly focused and has nothing to say about the root cause of AGW: over population/over consumption.

 

By your quote above the scientific community would have the power to force the regulatation of births.

 

That is over stating it some what. They would have as much power to regulate births as the unions had power to alter government policy through green bans.

 

 

And anyway regulating births, as in China, could only be a last resort if other fertility control measures failed.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you could setup a system within the scientific community similar to the no union ticket no job in unionised work places.

 

You have to be a member of the scientific union in order to publish in journals and gain access to the peer review process. It would be totally independant of governments and the public and could not be vetoed by either.

 

Such a system would do much to enforce discipline and wider responsibility on scientists.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JustinW]

Yes I could see that. I'm willing to bet a system like that would have voice of reason and influence around the world. I wouldn't say that you had to be a member to have access to peer review though. There can be a lot of discovery missed like that. Say a janitor has an "AHHA" moment but can't gain access to such a committee without the propper funding or associations. His AHHA can be easily swept under the rug.

[Greg Boyles]

Yes I could see that. I'm willing to bet a system like that would have voice of reason and influence around the world. I wouldn't say that you had to be a member to have access to peer review though. There can be a lot of discovery missed like that. Say a janitor has an "AHHA" moment but can't gain access to such a committee without the propper funding or associations. His AHHA can be easily swept under the rug.

 

It is not a problem as far as the medical boards go that regulate doctors and decide who is a fit and proper person to practice medicine and who isn't.

 

If you don't have a system something like this then scientists can choose to operate out side the union, do as they please and not take wider responsibility for their research.

 

And what we have now is pretty much a scientific wild west where there is little or no global accountibility for scientists.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JohnB]

Perhaps you could setup a system within the scientific community similar to the no union ticket no job in unionised work places.

 

Compulsory unionisation.

 

You have to be a member of the scientific union in order to publish in journals and gain access to the peer review process.

 

Work licences.

 

It would be totally independant of governments and the public and could not be vetoed by either.

 

Zero responsibility or oversight. (How do you handle internal corruption?) But there's nothing better than a great big organisation to tell people what they are allowed to think or say is there? Go against the "Union" lines and no research funding and no publication rights.

 

An example - the erradication of malaria or AIDS etc. Do the scientists who develop and implement this sort of thing stop to consider the wider implications of doing this. The world is already grossly over populated.

 

We could stop cancer research as well, that would save a fair bit of money and help reduce the population on this "grossly overpopulated" planet. Gee, maybe we should simply shut down all the hospitals.

 

This is a difficult question, especially if you are one with malaria, but it is a question that we avoid at the peril of the entire human race and western civilisation.

 

The question is very easy to answer in the west because, for various reasons, our fertility is very low and reducing death from disease has less of an ecological impact.

 

So we force the poor, non white people of the world to die in misery and squalor to give a brighter future for your white descendents.

 

Damn Greg, it sounds like heaven on a stick.

 

 

JustinW, a simple question.

 

How could an organisation that people are forced to join and forced to agree with and forced to comply with, without the option of dissent possibly be a "voice of reason" in any conversation? The entire concept is based on the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority". The logic works this way;

1. The scientists are smarter than you are.

2. The scientists "agree".

3. You must do as you are told and defer to their authority.

 

The fallacy of this idea is shown by simple example. Swansont is an atomic physicist. Why is his opinion on mosquito bourne tropical diseases any better than mine?

 

So the "voice of reason and influence" is based on a logical fallacy, is totally authoritarian and is intolerant of dissent. Still think it's a worthwhile idea?

Edited December 24, 2011 by JohnB

[Greg Boyles]

Zero responsibility or oversight. (How do you handle internal corruption?) But there's nothing better than a great big organisation to tell people what they are allowed to think or say is there? Go against the "Union" lines and no research funding and no publication rights.

 

What makes you think that corruption in society will be any worst just because there is a global science union?

 

A disciplined and regulated science community, perhaps with some occasional corruption as with the rest of western society, has to be better than the current scientific wild west where scientists have no global responsibility for the escelating problems they contribute to causing.

 

We could stop cancer research as well, that would save a fair bit of money and help reduce the population on this "grossly overpopulated" planet. Gee, maybe we should simply shut down all the hospitals.

 

 

 

So we force the poor, non white people of the world to die in misery and squalor to give a brighter future for your white descendents.

 

Damn Greg, it sounds like heaven on a stick.

 

Now you are just starting to rant John. Gross exageration.

 

My union suggestion is just that from what I know. Perhaps the model would be more inline with medical boards that regulate GP's etc. They seem to work well and don't seem to be particularly prone to corruption.

 

non white people of the world to die in misery and squalor

I notice you are attemtping a racist slur John. Don't bother because I am not intimidated by it.

 

And what about the increased long term squalor and misery that results from exascerbating over population. As far as medical aid goes you are only focusing on the short term improvement in the lot of a relatively small number of people in the third world.

 

Perhaps if there was a global scientific board then you would be forced to widen your focus and look and the long term global implications medical progress. Not saying that it would or should necesarily halt it, but I am saying it might force you to be more active in pushing for compensatory research such as improvements in fertility control to offset the improvements in medical treatment. I.E. The scientists would insist that improved fertility control be rolled out simultabeously with medical improvements - mutually exclusive.

 

 

JustinW, a simple question.

 

How could an organisation that people are forced to join and forced to agree with and forced to comply with, without the option of dissent possibly be a "voice of reason" in any conversation? The entire concept is based on the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority". The logic works this way;

1. The scientists are smarter than you are.

2. The scientists "agree".

3. You must do as you are told and defer to their authority.

 

The fallacy of this idea is shown by simple example. Swansont is an atomic physicist. Why is his opinion on mosquito bourne tropical diseases any better than mine?

 

So the "voice of reason and influence" is based on a logical fallacy, is totally authoritarian and is intolerant of dissent. Still think it's a worthwhile idea?

John I am sure the union movement in the 1800s thought similarly when the Labour Party was formed in Australia. They also would have suddenly had to comply with party regulations if they wanted to be a member and gain signficant political power.

 

All I can say John is that, if a global scientific boards was formed and you had to be a member and comply with its regulations if you wish to conduct serious research, then you would get used to it.......or find another job I guess.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Phi for All]

The thing is that this idea is simply wrong. In many places they don't have a grid. Have a look at these percentages from the IEA. By all means hand over refrigerators and washing machines to Zambia, but 91% of the population don't have anything to plug them in to.

 

Here is a list of electricity generation per capita by nation.

 

How long will that refrigerator and washing machine run in Chad where the generation is 10.116 kWh per person? They need to increase power generation by 200x (not 200%, 200x) just to get to the level of Mexico. If they generate 6x as much power they reach the level of Haiti. Unless you have some absolutely new and mind bogglingly efficient refrigerators and washing machines, they need more power.

 

In many places there simply isn't a grid to disperse the power and even if there was, there isn't enough power being generated to do more than give each house 1 electric light.

Oh JohnB, you're lighting up a straw man. I did stipulate that they had to be on a grid for my idea to work.

 

I agree that getting power to those that are underpowered would take precedent. But the US tends to want to bring aid in the form of US contractors building hydroelectric dams that not only mess up the local environment, they also fail to bring anything but the lowest paying labor jobs to the area, with much of the funds allotted for work going into the pockets of the local governors. It's foreign aid that does more for a select few US businesses, and usually ends with the locals having a poor opinion of us.

 

For those areas where the power is there but inefficiently used, putting efficient appliances in the homes might solve their power problems, decrease the corruption and garner a better opinion from the population. I'm just saying we don't always have to leap to build dams.

[JohnB]

A disciplined and regulated science community,

 

Disciplined by who? And regulated by who?

 

Now you are just starting to rant John. Gross exageration.

 

No greg, I'm not. I'm pointing out the glaring double standard that I see. Given that you said;

So what is the cost/benefit of keeping millions more children alive that would otherwise die from malaria?

 

I'm pointing out that you don't seem to want to apply the same criteria to keeping people alive in western nations. Belguim has a population density of 355 per square kilometre while Mali has 12. Which is overpopulated?

 

I notice you are attemtping a racist slur John. Don't bother because I am not intimidated by it.

 

And what about the increased long term squalor and misery that results from exascerbating over population.

 

Not a racist slur at all. I've simply noted that the "environmentally friendly" answer to every environmental "problem" for the last 50 years has involved the third world continuing to live in poverty and sqalour. It is an observation of fact. If that makes some environmentalists uncomfortable, that is not my problem.

 

The increasing long term squalour you speak of would be alleviated by economic development. But that means more access to cheap power, and technology and medicines. These are things you are arguing against so I can only conclude that you are in favour of them continuing to live in misery. The simple fact that it will be mostly non whites who are adversely effected by these ideas is beside the point. I don't think that you are racist, I think that you simply don't care. Black, white, brown or yellow, you just hate humans. You don't care who dies, so long as a lot of them do, it just happens to easier to oppress and slaughter the very poor in poor nations than it is to convince the West to self immolate.

 

All I can say John is that, if a global scientific boards was formed and you had to be a member and comply with its regulations if you wish to conduct serious research, then you would get used to it.......or find another job I guess.

 

"Seig Heil! Yawohl main Fuhrer. Ze people will not tink anyzing zat has not been officially approved."

 

What you are saying is that only those who agree with the "party" line will be allowed to speak. Therefore there will be nobody who speaks in dissent. Therefore there is no dissent. Therefore the "Party Line" is always right. Have you read 1984? The scary thing is that after the disaster of Lysenkoism and State directed research in general someone is actually putting forward such ideas again.

 

Re the corruption thing. It's not that I think corruption will be worse with the described organisation, I think it will be the same. (roughly) However I work from the basis that scientists are human beings and are effected by the failings of all human beings, therefore some of them are corrupt. (And this is demonstratably true.) So any organisation that doesn't have external oversight will inevitable become corrupt because there is no mechanism to stop the corruption. The medical boards haven't done that great a job of being self policing have they? For two years there were complaints about James Patel and the boards found nothing amiss.

 

For me it's a philosophical thing. I believe that without external oversight then corruption will become entrenched, simply because of the lack of removal mechanisms. Therefore internal investigations are always bad. The desire not to harm the reputation of the organisation can be a very strong incentive to turn a blind eye. Rather than an objection to your organisation specifically, this is an objection to any organisation set up in such a manner.

Edited December 24, 2011 by JohnB

[Phi for All]

Let's steer this discussion a bit more towards Earth Science and less towards Politics or I sense a thread move coming on.

 

Just sayin'.

[Essay]

We are scientists, but we are the minority. The global population don't have enough information to stop pollute or awareness other person.

Imagine one world inhabited by scientists, would be a dream, everybody knows what to do to preserve oceans, rivers, forests, the nature in general.

We need do something.

This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.

But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

 

Thank you, Leonardo maia.

 

 

 

To do, or not to do... something, anything, or the right thing; that is the question, eh?

 

Etymology: Economy...from the Greek, Oikos/Nemein

Economy: "Eco" = Resources/Environs + "nomy" = Management of....

So a good economy should be based on good management of resources; which should be based on ecology, the study and understanding of our resources.

===

 

Imbalances within a complicated carbon cycle seem to be at the root of most or all our problems, due to our historically increasing, though unwitting, management of various carbon pools (resources). We could solve most or all of our problems by intentionally managing the carbon pools, to direct the carbon cycle back into a sustainable and more equable or temperate balance.

 

...if "we need to do something."

 

~

[Greg Boyles]

Disciplined by who? And regulated by who?

By the braod based body that serves the same purpose for all science that the medical boards do for medicine in the west.

 

I don't hear you whining and moaning about the 'nazism' of medical boards that determine which GP's are fit and proper to conduct medicine in western countries. If it can work well for GPs etc then it can work well for the broader science community.

 

I'm pointing out that you don't seem to want to apply the same criteria to keeping people alive in western nations. Belguim has a population density of 355 per square kilometre while Mali has 12. Which is overpopulated?

The only reason that Europe has high population density and growing populations is due to immigration from Africa and other third world countries. Without it Europe's population density and population level would have been declining for the past few decades.

 

Not a racist slur at all. I've simply noted that the "environmentally friendly" answer to every environmental "problem" for the last 50 years has involved the third world continuing to live in poverty and sqalour. It is an observation of fact. If that makes some environmentalists uncomfortable, that is not my problem.

Skin colour aside the fact remains that the third world is the major source of unsustainable population growth. So much so that their excess population is spilling over into the west increasing unsustainable consumption there even further.

 

The increasing long term squalour you speak of would be alleviated by economic development. But that means more access to cheap power, and technology and medicines. These are things you are arguing against so I can only conclude that you are in favour of them continuing to live in misery. The simple fact that it will be mostly non whites who are adversely effected by these ideas is beside the point.

The earth cannot sustain the human race's current consumption level. Please show how it will sustain the entire third world living at western living standards long enough for them to perhaps reduce their fertility.

 

I don't think that you are racist, I think that you simply don't care. Black, white, brown or yellow, you just hate humans. You don't care who dies, so long as a lot of them do, it just happens to easier to oppress and slaughter the very poor in poor nations than it is to convince the West to self immolate.

They are suffering and dieing under your failed regime of economic development.......or economic imperilaism for the purpose of self enrichment as many in the third world see it.........why do you think so much or the world, outside America, despise yanks.

 

I want to see their fertility dramatically reduced so that there is less economic fodder available for americans to exploit and perpetuate poverty and suffering for the majority.

 

 

"Seig Heil! Yawohl main Fuhrer. Ze people will not tink anyzing zat has not been officially approved."

 

What you are saying is that only those who agree with the "party" line will be allowed to speak. Therefore there will be nobody who speaks in dissent. Therefore there is no dissent. Therefore the "Party Line" is always right. Have you read 1984? The scary thing is that after the disaster of Lysenkoism and State directed research in general someone is actually putting forward such ideas again.

 

What you are saying is that your own individual interests are more important than the wider interests of civilisation and its long term stability.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Let's steer this discussion a bit more towards Earth Science and less towards Politics or I sense a thread move coming on.

 

Just sayin'.

 

In fact, I would say that P(thread move) = 1

 

Greg, though I would normally steer clear of political threads, I would ask if you actually have some sources to back up some of your more recent claims; specifically:

 

The only reason that Europe has high population density and growing populations is due to immigration from Africa and other third world countries. Without it Europe's population density and population level would have been declining for the past few decades.

 

Skin colour aside the fact remains that the third world is the major source of unsustainable population growth. So much so that their excess population is spilling over into the west increasing unsustainable consumption there even further.

 

Please read this article so that you might come back with a more informed opinion on the matter.

 

From the article:

 

Parents choose to have smaller families when health conditions improve because they no longer have to fear that many of their babies might die, and when they do not have to rely on their children to work on the family farm or business or to take care of them in their old age. In addition, more parents are sending their daughters to school, which is important because women with basic education tend to produce healthier children and smaller families. More women now have opportunities to work outside the home, so they are starting their families later and having fewer children. On top of all that, access to modern contraceptives for family planning is improving, making it easier for parents to control the number and spacing of their children.

 

Enforced "fertility control" of the populations of developing nations is not the solution, Greg. It isn't practical, it generally isn't ethical and in the long run, it doesn't really solve the problem, it only treats the symptoms.

Edited December 24, 2011 by hypervalent_iodine

[JohnB]

Oh JohnB, you're lighting up a straw man. I did stipulate that they had to be on a grid for my idea to work.

 

I agree that getting power to those that are underpowered would take precedent. But the US tends to want to bring aid in the form of US contractors building hydroelectric dams that not only mess up the local environment, they also fail to bring anything but the lowest paying labor jobs to the area, with much of the funds allotted for work going into the pockets of the local governors. It's foreign aid that does more for a select few US businesses, and usually ends with the locals having a poor opinion of us.

 

For those areas where the power is there but inefficiently used, putting efficient appliances in the homes might solve their power problems, decrease the corruption and garner a better opinion from the population. I'm just saying we don't always have to leap to build dams.

 

Sorry Phi, I don't see it as a strawman at all. In many places there isn't enough power in the grid to service the people already connected to it. For example Haiti has a grid connectivity of 31%, so combine that with the production of 63.49 kWh per capita feeding into the grid, this means that each person connected has available to them some 180 kWh of power. That isn't enough power. It doesn't matter that Haiti is a basket case, it could have the most wonderful democratic government on Earth, but the numbers just don't add up. You would need to feed 33 times as much power into the current grid just to get those currently connected up the level of Britain, let alone expanding the grid to everybody. It's like saying that the original Niagra Falls generator would power the USA if you only had "more efficient" appliances.

 

More efficient appliances are fine as a thing, but it's putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. When you are short Gigawatts, saving a few megawatts here and there doesn't make a real difference.

 

While I take your point about hydro dams, to a degree I gather from your comment that it isn't so much what is being done, but how it's being done. If that is the case, then argue for a better way, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, there is corruption in many of these nations. That is a fact of life and doing business there, you factor bribes into your costings. It's not good, it's not how people from the West would like to do things, but that is how they are. Do you really want to stand on your principles so much that you would deny 100,000 people electricity, clean water and sewerage just to avoid paying some fathead local governor $1,000,000 in bribes?

 

This is the world of "RealPolitik".

 

But here is the real question. If you don't want to use hydro, what do you want to use? I think we can rule out nukes as I personally wouldn't trust a lot of those govs as far as I could throw them. Since one of the reasons you give against hydro is that they "mess up the local environment" we can rule out vast wind farms as well. If you're worried about CO2 then they can't have coal. Solar is not yet a viable baseload generator. So where are the needed Gigawatts going to come from? Also bear in mind that these are poor nations with poor governments. They simply cannot afford to subsidise "renewables" at 20 cents per kWh like the West can. So where is the power going to come from?

 

Also note that the more high tech (like wind) the power comes from, the fewer jobs there will be for the generally poorly educated people. Cut it any way you like, but if the local population is basically uneducated, then low paying labouring jobs is all that the locals are able to do. Power installations like hydro dams employ large numbers of people and stimulate the local economy, wind farms with their relatively few highly specialised jobs do not. (At least nowhere near as much.)

 

By the braod based body that serves the same purpose for all science that the medical boards do for medicine in the west.

 

I don't hear you whining and moaning about the 'nazism' of medical boards that determine which GP's are fit and proper to conduct medicine in western countries. If it can work well for GPs etc then it can work well for the broader science community.

 

Medical boards operate on a national and not supranational basis. That is point one. Point two is that you think the Australian Medical Board is doing a good job. I think it's bloody appalling. In the James Patel case the Medical Authorities that you seem to think so highly of ignored complaints about this doctor for over two years. We finished up with something like 80 bodies on the deck and over 120 patients severely injured. The system stinks to high heaven. Do a bit of a Google search and see if you see what is missing. I happen to find it extremely suspicious that no doctors seem to have been struck off for negligence. There are plenty for "inappropriate conduct" towards women and children, but negligence?

 

If we are to believe what is easily available, doctors might be sexual predators, rapists and kiddie fiddlers, but they are also at all times highly trained and professional in their conduct. Anybody want to buy a bridge? I notice the same thing with the Poms by the way. The Daily Mail had an article on this recently.

 

I don't want to see more boards like this because I don't think the ones we have are doing their job properly. When you get the ones we have to work the way they are supposed to you will have an argument for more and bigger versions, not before.

 

The only reason that Europe has high population density and growing populations is due to immigration from Africa and other third world countries. Without it Europe's population density and population level would have been declining for the past few decades.

 

Rubbish. Even without the immigration Europes pop. dens. is far higher than most third world nations. Europes density is higher because it is developed and can therefore support more people. Developed modern agriculture supports more people per square mile than subsistance farming does.

 

Skin colour aside the fact remains that the third world is the major source of unsustainable population growth. So much so that their excess population is spilling over into the west increasing unsustainable consumption there even further.

 

Yes, their population is unsustainable while they are a third world nation, this encourages people to leave. This is no different than the free settlers who came to Australia. But if the third world was developed, it could then sustain more people and a higher population and density. The difference between our approaches is that you want them to die off until they reach a lower population, "sustainable" at their current development level. I want them to develop so that they can sustain their current and possibly higher population.

 

The earth cannot sustain the human race's current consumption level.

 

Prove it. This is the basic assumption that your entire argument relies on. Prove it, show me the figures.

 

They are suffering and dieing under your failed regime of economic development

 

Just about every bit of development the third world has got has been with the direct opposition of the western green movement. Who stopped them from having DDT? Who prevents them from getting fertiliser? Who opposes dams and power generation on behalf of "the ecology"? They are suffering and dieing because every green lobby in the west wants them to and acts in direct opposition to their development. Don't try to hang that one on me, it won't work.

 

What you are saying is that your own individual interests are more important than the wider interests of civilisation and its long term stability.

 

If that is what you have got from my comments, then I suggest a course in remedial comprehension. Read what I write, not what your political blinders interpret.

 

PS. Phi, I warned back in post #24 that the discussion was headed directly for politics. If the idea is to do the "right thing" rather than "some thing" then deciding what the "right thing" is is strictly a political decision.

[hypervalent_iodine]

A small aside.

 

Who stopped them from having DDT?

 

My understanding was that such nations were permitted use of DDT for the prevention of malarial disease, albeit restricted. Last time I checked that was for a presentation about 4 or 5 years ago, though, so I may be wrong.

[JohnB]

My understanding was that such nations were permitted use of DDT for the prevention of malarial disease, albeit restricted. Last time I checked that was for a presentation about 4 or 5 years ago, though, so I may be wrong.

 

You're not wrong. DDT is still allowed for mosquito vector control. But, it's very hard to buy a product when the factories are closed down. India is the only nation currently making DDT. It is also very hard for poor nations who often depend on outside donors to get those donors to fund DDT programs due to political pressure applied to those donors in the west. Even though DDT is still available, the money to fund programs dried up. There is more than one way to kill an idea.

 

Can you imagine the stink Bob Brown would make if the Oz gov funded some DDT programs overseas?

Edited December 24, 2011 by JohnB

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's sad the damage idiots like What's-her-face Carson can do in combination with a general lack of education and skepticism amongst the public.

[JustinW]

JustinW, a simple question.

 

How could an organisation that people are forced to join and forced to agree with and forced to comply with, without the option of dissent possibly be a "voice of reason" in any conversation? The entire concept is based on the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority". The logic works this way;

1. The scientists are smarter than you are.

2. The scientists "agree".

3. You must do as you are told and defer to their authority.

 

The fallacy of this idea is shown by simple example. Swansont is an atomic physicist. Why is his opinion on mosquito bourne tropical diseases any better than mine?

 

So the "voice of reason and influence" is based on a logical fallacy, is totally authoritarian and is intolerant of dissent. Still think it's a worthwhile idea?

This is why I mentioned influence instead of control. Partly for some of the same reasons. I didn't imagine a group like this ever coming into existance, so I imbelished on the idea from an imaginary utopian frame of refrence.

 

PS. Phi, I warned back in post #24 that the discussion was headed directly for politics. If the idea is to do the "right thing" rather than "some thing" then deciding what the "right thing" is is strictly a political decision.

Well, the OP was that we have to do something. The next question automatically becomes what to do, and is it the right thing to do. So the move was probably inevitable anyway.