What is personal hygiene? It is basically about not doing things that could make you sick, generally regarding cleanliness. You don't pick up dirty food from the floor and stick it in your mouth. It is not hygienic. This is true even if you are not positive it will make you sick and you don't even know exactly what disease you could get. It just isn't worth the risk.
On the other hand, we have the 10 second rule, which says that if some food hits the floor and you pick it up pretty quickly, you can still eat it. This is because we assume that the risk of this situation is small enough that we don't want to lose that Oreo cookie.
So lets transfer this idea to the environment. You should not stick stuff into the environment that could make it sick. We may not have perfect data on what exactly it will do or what the precise consequences are, but we should know not to do it. On the other hand, we have think up some 10 second rules for things of low risk.
So I am not an "environmentalist" or at least not the way that it is interpreted in the public domain. I just believe in practicing good environmental hygiene. I don't care if the evidence on global warning is 100% sure or not. All I know is that sending up tons of greenhouse gases into the environment is not good hygiene, and I think we should stop doing it.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
deliberation policies in Congress
The book Infotopia is a valuable read for anyone interested in policy. One of the research findings that Cass Sunstein discusses is the problem that current deliberation policies in Congress have on the quality of the deliberations. In general, deliberations only work when people with minority opinions are encouraged (even forced) to share their views. It is not that it moves people to more 'moderate' or 'consensus' opinions. What it does is prevent Groupthink and other massive mistakes. So if the party in power restricts the floor time of members of the other party, or members of their own party who disagree with the majority opinion, not only are they violating a core value of the democratic process (my 2 cents), but they are also degrading the quality of their own decision making abilities.
So lets hope that Nancy Pelosi et al don't succumb to this temptation. Hopefully, she will read Cass' book.
So lets hope that Nancy Pelosi et al don't succumb to this temptation. Hopefully, she will read Cass' book.
New Orleans reconstruction
On NPR's News and Notes show on Friday, the panel was debating New Orleans reconstruction. They were discussing how sad it is that the population of New Orleans has been cut in half, especially in the poor black neighborhoods that were most damaged by hurricane Katrina.
What got me thinking was that they were saying how much they (the dems and reps) hoped that eventually they would get the reconstruction and insurance problems fixed enough that these neighborhoods could be repopulated. But the truth is just the opposite. In general, you could never identify a neighborhood that will frequently be devastated by hurricanes/floods and kick everyone out. Why not take advantage of the current situation by turning the neighborhoods that are low-lying into something other than residential (such as parks) that would not be damaged significantly in a flood? If the previous residents really want to move back to New Orleans, I am sure there are some higher elevation neighborhoods that they can use their insurance checks and reconstruction payments to finance. This is not a poor/rich or black/white issue. It is a safe/unsafe and responsible/prohibitively expensive issue.
Another topic discussed by the panel was that middle class blacks, such as doctors and nurses, lawyers, etc. do not have the opportunity to create the critical mass that would reestablish New Orleans history as a hub of black culture. Does this mean that these residents, living in Houston, Baton Rouge, or Atlanta, are not able to create critical masses of black culture in those cities? History is history - it occurred in the past. In the present and future, these individuals are just as capable at creating culture in whatever city they live in. Why not do it in neighborhoods that will not be flooded every couple of years?
What got me thinking was that they were saying how much they (the dems and reps) hoped that eventually they would get the reconstruction and insurance problems fixed enough that these neighborhoods could be repopulated. But the truth is just the opposite. In general, you could never identify a neighborhood that will frequently be devastated by hurricanes/floods and kick everyone out. Why not take advantage of the current situation by turning the neighborhoods that are low-lying into something other than residential (such as parks) that would not be damaged significantly in a flood? If the previous residents really want to move back to New Orleans, I am sure there are some higher elevation neighborhoods that they can use their insurance checks and reconstruction payments to finance. This is not a poor/rich or black/white issue. It is a safe/unsafe and responsible/prohibitively expensive issue.
Another topic discussed by the panel was that middle class blacks, such as doctors and nurses, lawyers, etc. do not have the opportunity to create the critical mass that would reestablish New Orleans history as a hub of black culture. Does this mean that these residents, living in Houston, Baton Rouge, or Atlanta, are not able to create critical masses of black culture in those cities? History is history - it occurred in the past. In the present and future, these individuals are just as capable at creating culture in whatever city they live in. Why not do it in neighborhoods that will not be flooded every couple of years?
Monday, December 25, 2006
don't believe everything you read
I read an article last week that really opened my eyes to why the world is such as mess. Unfortunately it was in The Economist so I can't post a free link. But here is the gist:
Many of the things we think we can do to make the world a better place may not really work, and may actually do more harm than good. For example, there are scientists who claim that organic farming is not better than standard because of lower yields - more land is needed to create the same amount of food. It also requires more energy to cultivate, creating more greenhouse gases.
The article also describes initiatives like Fair Trade, and buying local and presents some reliable sources that discuss how these ideas may make you feel good, but don't achieve the stated goals.
I am not sure how I will react to this in terms of changed behavior. I have always been skeptical, so I have not advocated organic, Fair Trade, or local goods. Now I am even less tempted.
So this is why I think this article illustrates why the world is such a mess. I realize that many people make decisions on these issues (and vote) based on what they want to be true, rather than what is really true. George Bush taking us into Itaq in 2003 is a great example.
But even those of us why try to behave based on the best evidence and reliable sources can't do it. When initiatives I think have reliable data behind them turn out to be useless (and maybe even harmful), I just don't know what to do anymore.
Many of the things we think we can do to make the world a better place may not really work, and may actually do more harm than good. For example, there are scientists who claim that organic farming is not better than standard because of lower yields - more land is needed to create the same amount of food. It also requires more energy to cultivate, creating more greenhouse gases.
The article also describes initiatives like Fair Trade, and buying local and presents some reliable sources that discuss how these ideas may make you feel good, but don't achieve the stated goals.
I am not sure how I will react to this in terms of changed behavior. I have always been skeptical, so I have not advocated organic, Fair Trade, or local goods. Now I am even less tempted.
So this is why I think this article illustrates why the world is such a mess. I realize that many people make decisions on these issues (and vote) based on what they want to be true, rather than what is really true. George Bush taking us into Itaq in 2003 is a great example.
But even those of us why try to behave based on the best evidence and reliable sources can't do it. When initiatives I think have reliable data behind them turn out to be useless (and maybe even harmful), I just don't know what to do anymore.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
integration
I had a fascinating conversation with the head of Integral Miami, an organization devoted to promoting multi-dimensional solutions to the world's biggest problems. The attraction for me is that I have always used the Integral philosophy in all of my work. I am a true believer that you can't solve any real world problem without considering at least the dimensions of technological capabilities, economic costs and benefits, public values, and legal realities. So he and I could have talked for hours (which in fact we did).
I suspect that one of the reasons most government solutions fail is that they ignore the impact of at least one key dimension. Either the solution is not technologically feasible (CAN SPAM Act), is not economically viable (most health care proposals), violates some core public value (the "death" tax, CIA eavesdropping), or is simply unconstitutional (again CIA eavesdropping).
What we need is to get more integral thinkers into public policy and somehow avoid the political compromising and horsetrading that makes just about every government solution weak at best.
I suspect that one of the reasons most government solutions fail is that they ignore the impact of at least one key dimension. Either the solution is not technologically feasible (CAN SPAM Act), is not economically viable (most health care proposals), violates some core public value (the "death" tax, CIA eavesdropping), or is simply unconstitutional (again CIA eavesdropping).
What we need is to get more integral thinkers into public policy and somehow avoid the political compromising and horsetrading that makes just about every government solution weak at best.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Iran Holocaust denial conference
It is not surprising at the diversity of people who are attending Iran's Holocaust denial conference. David Duke is an old time antisemite. The orthodox jewish community that is attending doesn't deny the holocaust, but they are against Israel because it was established through force (which they claim is against the Talmud).
The fact that most people in the world dismiss this conference as ridiculous doesn't make me feel any better. It is fine now that there are many people still alive who are witnesses of the holocaust atrocities. But what happens in 100 years when not only are they all gone, but everyone who they talked to are also gone. Even with Steven Spielberg's project to videotape their testimonies will become less and less salient over time. Soon enough, it will be really easy to start the terrible process all over again. Whether it is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or some other myth, it will again be easy to use the Jews (or another minority) as a scapegoat for the economic hardships of some country somewhere. It can be Iran, Wiemar Germany, 19th century Russia, Middle Ages Europe, or Ramses' Egypt.
I'll be probably be dead by the time the next one occurs, and this blog will be a hidden archive file somewhere in Internet heaven. But by heart goes out now to the victims of that future travesty, which I know will happen someday because history repeats itself and those who forget (or deny) will be there.
The fact that most people in the world dismiss this conference as ridiculous doesn't make me feel any better. It is fine now that there are many people still alive who are witnesses of the holocaust atrocities. But what happens in 100 years when not only are they all gone, but everyone who they talked to are also gone. Even with Steven Spielberg's project to videotape their testimonies will become less and less salient over time. Soon enough, it will be really easy to start the terrible process all over again. Whether it is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or some other myth, it will again be easy to use the Jews (or another minority) as a scapegoat for the economic hardships of some country somewhere. It can be Iran, Wiemar Germany, 19th century Russia, Middle Ages Europe, or Ramses' Egypt.
I'll be probably be dead by the time the next one occurs, and this blog will be a hidden archive file somewhere in Internet heaven. But by heart goes out now to the victims of that future travesty, which I know will happen someday because history repeats itself and those who forget (or deny) will be there.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
social programs that work
The Miami Herald had an article yesterday that has two critical implications for this blog:
1. It is possible to increase the effectiveness of our social programs (government and philanthropic) by looking at which ones work best and funneling our money in those directions (i.e. data-driven funding).
2. Most of the listed programs are "teach them to fish" programs. All of them focus on literacy, job training, scholarships, etc. Programs that help people earn money, rather than give them stuff.
I am not surprised at all by this. But it is refreshing to see it in print.
1. It is possible to increase the effectiveness of our social programs (government and philanthropic) by looking at which ones work best and funneling our money in those directions (i.e. data-driven funding).
2. Most of the listed programs are "teach them to fish" programs. All of them focus on literacy, job training, scholarships, etc. Programs that help people earn money, rather than give them stuff.
I am not surprised at all by this. But it is refreshing to see it in print.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
moderating fundamentalist countries
I had an odd brainstorm this morning while listening to Speaking of Faith on NPR. The story was about Muslim women who wear veils in. The guest was discussing why she and other westernized Muslim women have gone back to wearing a veil. I have heard similar stories before. To summarize (major paraphrase and oversimplification) many in the new generation wear the veil in part to show how they ARE empowered. There parents and community in the intelligentsia have rejected veils, so this shows how they are different. In the US, it is to show how there are different from the general community. So wearing veils is almost like a form of rebellion and empowerment, not conformity and oppression.
Interesting take. Ironically, this is kind of the explanation I give about why I keep Kosher. It is not because I feel obligated, but because it shows that I independently made a decision to do it, and I get to explain what this means to my non-Jewish friends, students, and colleagues.
But the public policy brainstorm I had was something bigger. My thought was that we should encourage children of the leaders in fundamentalist countries (i.e. Iran) to come to the US for extended periods of time. Many of them will develop more moderate (perhaps western) views of various aspects of their fundamentalism. Then when they go back, the general population will be exposed to them. With enough critical mass, perhaps they will spread like viruses and move the population more moderate.
Do you think it would work? Share your views.
Interesting take. Ironically, this is kind of the explanation I give about why I keep Kosher. It is not because I feel obligated, but because it shows that I independently made a decision to do it, and I get to explain what this means to my non-Jewish friends, students, and colleagues.
But the public policy brainstorm I had was something bigger. My thought was that we should encourage children of the leaders in fundamentalist countries (i.e. Iran) to come to the US for extended periods of time. Many of them will develop more moderate (perhaps western) views of various aspects of their fundamentalism. Then when they go back, the general population will be exposed to them. With enough critical mass, perhaps they will spread like viruses and move the population more moderate.
Do you think it would work? Share your views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
