Diversity constitutes reality, we know that for a fact.
Sam Carana
Those who have shared my epistemological contemplations will be
familiar with the fact that I believe that DIVERSITY is fundamental to
everything that exists. In short, diversity constitutes reality, as it
always has and as will always be the case.
Those who are smart and new here may ask how I can know this for a
fact. Indeed, how can diversity be rhymed with the singularity
inherent in facts? Indeed, how can I write the word "fact" in above
sentence, before even mentioning diversity?
In fact, I have always accepted facts, I actually like to start with
the facts and focus on reality. What I do NOT accept is the idea that
facts were inherently singular and therefore excluded diversity. Those
who know me, know that I do start with the facts and stick with the
facts, while all the time believing that diversity is fundamental to
reality. But let's have a look at an example, perhaps that will
clarify things.
Imagine a motorcycle driver, young and reckless, stupid and brave,
driving fast through the night on a lonely country road. The driver
chases a car that manages to just stay ahead, by similarly driving at
speeds far too fast for such a windy road. At the next curve, as the
motorcycle starts overtaking the car, two lights appear from the
opposite direction. The motorcycle driver has only a split-second to
decide to either slow down or keep overtaking. Naturally, the
motorcycle driver, in such a crucial decision, will resort to the
facts.
What do the facts say? Fact is that motorcycle drivers are prone to
fatal accidents, a good many of which are head-on collisions. Fact is
that it's dangerous, often even prohibited to overtake a car in a
curve. Fact is that motorcycles constitutes a small minority of
vehicles, so the chance is small that the two lights approaching from
the opposite direction are two motorcycles. The chance is even smaller
that two motorcycle would - stupidly - drive next to each other on a
windy country road in the night, instead of one behind the other.
So, what goes through the head of the motorcyclist while overtaking
the car? There may be a tiny chance that the approaching two lights
are of two motorcyclists. So, there is a tiny chance to continue to
overtake the car, and stay in between these two motorcyclists without
causing accidents. But the probability is low, in fact, there's a
bigger chance that the two lights from a car, or even a bus or a
truck.
Was there an emergency that justified taking such risks? What exactly
are the odds and the risks? Is there time to contemplate such
questions when one's survival depends on a split-second decision? Of
course, we all know the answer and any mature motorcycle driver knows
it too. We know what to do, not so much because we were in possession
of all the facts, We know what to do, not so much because we did
explore all alternatives, exhaustively testing them and proved them to
be wrong. Instead, we know what to do, because experience and maturity
tells us what to do.
Similarly, we've got to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We
know that for a fact. Global warming is a fact and there IS no
alternative but to reduce emissions. This conclusion is not in
conflict with the diversity that is inherent to reality. We simply do
not have the luxury to first explore the alternative and await proof
that temperatures will indeed rise with catastrophic results. We do
not have that option. We know that global warming is taking place and
we know that we must act now. That conclusion is fully in agreement
with the principle that diversity is fundamental to reality. We know
that we must act now to reduce emissions, we know that for a fact -
wisdom, experience and maturity tells us so.
Cheers!
I am Sam Carana, and I like ti start with facts and focus on reality.
archytas
often, but we can't go on playing stupid 'tragedy of the commons'
games under some false spirit of anything goes and diversity being
made more important than common cause.
Sam Carana
indeed nurture the very circumstances that will feed the rise of one
or more dictators who seek to impose global rules upon the world with
the sole intent to cement their grip over society, rather than to put
in place the effective policies that we need instead.
Yes, we need a global commitment to reduce emissions. I see that as a
given, but this doesn't mean global dictatorship. Instead, it means
that we need to agree on reduction targets and establish ways to deal
with disputes between countries. I suggest to have an arbitration body
to turn to for disputes, much like the WTO now handles trade disputes.
There actually are negotiations on this, to be completed in Copenhagen
in 2009.
At the same time, I believe that local communities should decide the
technicalities of how exactly they are going to reduce their emissions
and meet their targets. There are many ways to, say, produce clean and
safe energy; wind turbines may be attractive in some areas, solar
energy may become more prominent elsewhere, while yet another area may
predominantly exploit geothermal power; many areas may also prefer to
import electricity. Similarly, hydrogen may well become the dominant
way to power ships, while cars will predominantly drive on battery
power in future. Instead of prescribing a specific technology,
government should merely insist that alternatives be clean and safe.
In my view, a framework of feebates is the most effective way to
facilitate reductions. Feebates have a double impact, by imposing a
fee on whatever needs to be discouraged, while using the proceeds to
fund rebates on better alternatives. Market mechanisms can best sort
out which products deserve to get rebates. Feebates respect consumer
choice and optimize market mechanisms, which further increases their
effectiveness.
Feebates are most effective when applied locally, i.e. by using the
proceeds of fees collected in an area to support the better
alternatives that are supplied in that same area. That way, most money
will be used to make changes where they are needed most. Finally,
fees are best calculated as a percentage of the price charged by the
retailer to the consumer, This increases the effectiveness of the
policy by minimizing bureaucratic administrative overhead.
Over the years, I have proposed a number of feebates, including:
- a 10% fee on sales of new gasoline cars, with proceeds used to fund
local rebates on zero emission cars;
- a 10% fee on sales of fossil fuel, with proceeds used to fund
rebates on purchase and installation of local facilities that produce
energy in safe and clean ways;
- a 10% fee on sales of building and construction work that used
polluting concrete (i.e. that contributes to global warming), with
rebates on local purchases of clean concrete;
- a 10% fee on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on local sales of
agrichar (or biochar); and
- a 10% fee on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers on
vegan-organic meals served in local restaurants.
Furthermore, government support for polluters must be terminated -
instead, government should support clean and safe alternatives. There
are many things government could change, e.g. town planners could help
to set up vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads.
Also, deregulation of taxi services would allow more cars to take
paying passengers on board. Remember that, not in the previous
century, but the century before that, there already were electric
taxis in New York! The electric grid should welcome people who get
electric cars and who install solar panels, by introducing
differential pricing and two-way metering.
Each community should be discussing what policies work best for them
and work on that. Such policies do not impose a single system of rules
- instead, they celebrate diversity and that's what makes such
policies so effective!
Cheers!
Sam Carana
>> I am Sam Carana, and I like to start with facts and focus on reality.
archytas
recognition of just how dud current economics is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
chreodman
GST has already met your belief system with "The Law of Requisite
Variety." I so happens that any system will ultimately become defunct
if a requisite degree of diversity is not maintained... this is
evidenced in everything from a gene pool to the eco-system. You may
be interested in a group at LinkedIn entitled General Systems Theory,
which is run by a prof hailing from Harvard. Check it out... I have
some posts there myself.