Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

the death toll in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

According to this article from Brown University, around a half million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since the U.S. invasions, around half of them civilians. For me, this continues to bring doubt on the idea that here is any such thing as a humanitarian war that helps more people than it hurts.

This total is only people killed by violence – it does not include “indirect deaths” due to “loss of access to food, water, health facilities, electricity or other infrastructure.”

Obviously, it doesn’t include horrible conflicts the U.S. is less directly involved in (but still involved in) such as Syria and Yemen.

I also read this depressing article in Foreign Policy in Focus saying the ongoing civil war in South Sudan is much nastier than I realized, with a death toll around 400,000 and counting.

in praise of Richard Nixon

This post on History News Network makes a case that Richard Nixon looks great if you compare him to Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon did not set out to destroy our foreign policy, and in fact, improved it dramatically with the promotion of détente with the Soviet Union, the overture to the People’s Republic of China, and the nurturing of close ties with America’s allies in NATO. He had a mastery of foreign policy based on great experience from his Vice Presidential years onward for which he is often remembered aside from Watergate. This does not excuse the lengthening of the Vietnam War, or the terrible decisions on foreign policy regarding Chile, Greece, and the issue of the Indo-Pakistan War (which is associated with the creation of the nation of Bangladesh). But Donald Trump has been totally destructive in foreign affairs, alienating our allies in NATO, antagonizing all nations with his protectionist tariff policies, and consorting with authoritarian dictators including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of such other nations, as the Philippines, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Trump has also worsened relations with Iran and Cuba, based upon extremist right wing influences of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. The Middle East has become much more unstable. The US Foreign Service itself has been badly damaged by the inconsistencies and instability of Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon had many battles and conflicts with the Democratic-controlled Congress during his years in the Presidency, and yet managed to sign into law many signature measures that built upon the accomplishments of the Great Society of his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson. These included the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the enactment of Affirmative Action in employment and education. Donald Trump, in contrast, has been backtracking, destroying environmental protections, undermining consumer agencies, rolling back labor rights, ignoring scientific advancements, and curtailing civil rights. The Republican Party itself has become a willing participant in the destruction of these major domestic accomplishments of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon also promoted the concept of welfare reform, including the expansion of the Food Stamp Program, and attempted, though he failed, to advance health care reform. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has wished to destroy the health care plan represented by ObamaCare, stranding millions of people without health care, and offering no alternative, in collusion with a Republican Party far to the Right of what it was in Nixon’s time in the Oval Office. Additionally, Richard Nixon expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and initiated Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly and disabled, all programs now in danger from Trump and the GOP.

Trump has added to the long-term existential risks to our civilization posed by climate change and nuclear weapons. But so far, we’re incredibly lucky he has not been faced with a major global economic or geopolitical crisis. My apologies to people in Puerto Rico and Yemen, among other places, when I say that. These are horrible crises for limited geographic areas and limited numbers of people (millions, in the case of Yemen) and the U.S. administration has blood on its hands. But think about the world-wide suffering caused by the financial crisis of 2008 or the world at the brink of nuclear war in 1962, and now imagine Trump in charge at those moments. Two years down, two to go.

could Marxism make a comeback?

Maybe, according to this Marxist professor writing on Truthout.org.

Within the broad Marxian tradition, some strands offer both analyses and policies that differ sharply from anything offered by either neoclassical or Keynesian economics. To take perhaps the clearest example, many Marxists focus on the undemocratic position of capitalists within enterprises (individual owners and corporate boards of directors). Their decisions on whether and how to invest net revenues determine the shape of the macroeconomy for all. A minority focused on enterprise profits as “the bottom line” makes decisions impacting the jobs, incomes, debts, etc. of a majority to which it is not democratically accountable. This minority’s expectations, desires and “animal spirits” (as Keynes put it) causes instability, in the Marxian view. The policy suggestion emerging from that view focuses on a program to “democratize the enterprise” as a solution to instability. Replacing hierarchical undemocratic capitalist enterprises with democratically organized worker cooperatives – where each enterprise member has one vote in deciding key matters, such as investment decisions – is a way forward that neither neoclassical nor Keynesian economists have yet allowed to be debated in public and academic forums. We will all be better off when the current narrowness of economics is opened up to include more basic proposals for change adequate to the depth and scope of capitalism’s current problems.

I’m not sure where I “stand”, except I’d like to see more empirical testing of economic theories and less ideology. Even if we figured out which of the major economics religions is actually “the right one”, we still couldn’t expect it to pick solutions for us. It could identify a range of reasonably economically efficient solutions to a problem (and reject a lot of clearly dumb ones), but we would still have to pick one to try moving ahead with that best represented our values. But maybe with all those dumb solutions tossed out and better information at our fingertips about the range of good solutions, our messy political system would have a better chance of making good choices.

more from Peter Singer

In the article I mentioned yesterday, Peter Singer also gives a brief review of some climate change-related legal and political events going on internationally.

In 1992, countries, including the US, China, India, and all European states (and a total of 189 by 2006) accepted responsibility for addressing climate change. Meeting at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, they agreed to stabilize greenhouse gases “at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…”

Yet, with very few exceptions, governments have failed to take sufficient action to halt climate change, and most exacerbate the danger by continuing to support the use of fossil fuels. Hence activists in Belgium, Colombia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are seeking to use the courts to gain what they cannot obtain through political action.

The first climate litigation to win a positive decision was Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands, in which a Dutch court ruled, in 2015, that the government must ensure that the country’s emissions are cut by one quarter within five years. In response, the Dutch government did step up its actions to reduce emissions, but it also appealed the judgment.

This article was written in December, and the Dutch court system did apparently uphold the decision in an October ruling.

the trial of the century

Peter Singer is arguing for the importance of the lawsuit brought by children against the United States government for failing to address climate change.

The plaintiffs claim that their government’s active contribution to climate change has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. When the government sought to prevent the case from being heard, the federal district court of Oregon issued a historic ruling that “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”

When Juliana v. United States is appealed to the US Supreme Court, as seems inevitable, the question may no longer be whether the preservation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights requires “a climate system capable of sustaining human life”; it undeniably does. Instead, the Court will have to decide whether it is willing to heed the scientific evidence that the actions of the US government are indeed jeopardizing the survival of human life on our planet. If it is, even the most conservative justices will find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the government is in violation of the US Constitution.

Vertical Farms

I’m listening to Dixon Despommier’s 2010 book Vertical Farming. I was expecting an architect-y, design-y kind of book, but it turns out Despommier is an ecologist and his main message is ecological. He believes the current system of farming has been a disaster for the planet’s ecosystems and that it is also headed for a catastrophic collapse with current and increased demands for food. His argument is to bring most agriculture into high rises in urban areas where it can be very carefully controlled. This would also allow the re-wilding of most land currently devoted to agriculture worldwide.

He argues that this an economical choice when the value of ecosystem services is considered (although he simultaneously makes this argument and rails against the idea of monetizing ecosystems at all). I’m a little more than halfway through the book and I haven’t gotten to the part where he argues that the cost of using artificial light rather than taking advantage of free and abundant sunlight is offset by other costs. I assume he is going to get to that. I also wonder if he is going to address the idea that removing one limit (in this case, the amount of food that can be produced with the planet’s available land and sunlight) in the long term could allow us to continue growing the population until we hit another limit. These are a couple questions I am curious how we will address, but overall I am enjoying the book. He does briefly bring up the idea that this could be a step toward moving into space or colonizing other planets.

ecosystem restoration and carbon sequestration

Ecosystem and soil restoration could offset around a fifth of U.S. carbon emissions, according to this article in Science Advances.

Limiting climate warming to <2°C requires increased mitigation efforts, including land stewardship, whose potential in the United States is poorly understood. We quantified the potential of natural climate solutions (NCS)—21 conservation, restoration, and improved land management interventions on natural and agricultural lands—to increase carbon storage and avoid greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. We found a maximum potential of 1.2 (0.9 to 1.6) Pg CO2e year−1, the equivalent of 21% of current net annual emissions of the United States. At current carbon market prices (USD 10 per Mg CO2e), 299 Tg CO2e year−1 could be achieved. NCS would also provide air and water filtration, flood control, soil health, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience benefits.

countering misinformation

Back in 2012, Columbia Journalism Review gave some tips for how the media can try to counter misinformation. It’s hard and nothing is foolproof, but there are some best practices. People tend to believe things they hear repeated, things that meet their preconceived notions, and statements from people and organizations they trust. One best practice is to state the truth in a positive way rather than as the negation of a false statement. Another is to not quote partisan or ideological sources when refuting the false statement. Another is using graphics where possible to give context to numbers.

microdosing

There are people taking small doses of LSD and other psychedelics every day for their possible/suspected health benefits, and there may actually be some science behind this.

Microdosing psychedelics – the regular consumption of small amounts of psychedelic substances such as LSD or psilocybin – is a growing trend in popular culture. Recent studies on full-dose psychedelic psychotherapy reveal promising benefits for mental well-being, especially for depression and end-of-life anxiety. While full-dose therapies include perception-distorting properties, microdosing may provide complementary clinical benefits using lower-risk, non-hallucinogenic doses. No experimental study has evaluated psychedelic microdosing, however; this pre-registered study is the first to investigate microdosing psychedelics and mental health. Recruited from online forums, current and former microdosers scored lower on measures of dysfunctional attitudes and negative emotionality and higher on wisdom, open-mindedness, and creativity when compared to non microdosing controls. These findings provide promising initial evidence that warrants controlled experimental research to directly test safety and clinical efficacy. As microdoses are easier to administer than full-doses, this new paradigm has the exciting potential to shape future psychedelic research.

Oumuamua

I tracked down the Harvard astrophysics paper that suggests this object could be an alien spacecraft or probe. They never say that it is one, only that its behavior would be consistent with one. Sadly, it seems like we missed the boat and it is too late to train our telescopes or send probes of our own in time to get a good look at the thing, so the best we can do is be on the lookout for others like it in the future.