Trump and Cruz are openly talking about indiscriminate killing of civilians abroad. Which is illegal. You’re not supposed to talk about it. There are really no perfect options when it comes to terrorism. Option 1 would be to only collect information abroad, then play defense at the border and within our own borders. You could argue that is sort of what the U.S. was doing before 9/11. It’s not hard for people to point to pictures of a smoking hole in Manhattan and make a case that is not good enough. Option 2 is scorched earth attacks against entire civilian populations anywhere we think a few enemies may be hiding. This is clearly illegal, although it has happened on a large scale in most wars. That is what Trump and Cruz are advocating. In the middle is pursuing “targeted” attacks abroad, destroying a few houses or groups of people that we think may contain our targets, usually with permission of the government of the host country. This (let’s call it Option 1.5) is the path Obama has chosen. How targeted is it really? Here’s a Guardian article from 2014 arguing that the United States has killed about 27 innocent people for every enemy killed. Most disturbingly, this includes many children. I personally like the idea of doing a really good job with #1. But I think Obama has made some tough choices and I respect that. Let’s not pretend that the more violent options are ever for the benefit of the people in the countries where they are carried out, though. They are about sacrificing the lives of a certain number of (mostly non-white, non-Christian, non-English speaking) civilians abroad, whose lives our government implicitly decides are worth less than the lives of civilians at home (although let’s remember that civilians at home are subject to mass death from gun violence, suicide, motor vehicle violence and lack of health care, which we don’t factor into this equation). I’ll give Trump and Cruz some small credit for saying what they mean and meaning what they say on this one. Listen carefully to what they say, and vote accordingly.
Ted Cruz
Thinking of Ted Cruz as an alternative to Donald Trump? Looking at Ted Cruz on ontheissues.org, here’s my assessment. He’s a traditional “god, gays, and guns” Christian fundamentalist. The government should have the right to tell us what to believe in (his particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, of course) and what it is okay for us to do in our own bedrooms and families. He would continue the failed “tough on crime” policies that have put so much of our poor and minority population behind bars at enormous taxpayer expense. He would “stand up” to nuclear-armed foreign governments like Russia, China and Iran through aggressive military means. On the other hand, in most matters not involving personal religious beliefs, sexual practices or armed violence against the already-born, he’s a “starve the beast” zealot who is ideologically opposed to the very idea of government. He would try to end government involvement in retirement, health care, education, environmental protection, financial stability and the ability to counteract recessions through fiscal and monetary policy.
Personally, I consider it completely non-partisan to look at the risks involved and just say no. This irrational, inconsistent set of ideas is not based on any sort of factual analysis or attempt to understand how the world works. It is likely to destabilize the economy and/or get us into wars. It’s just dangerous. Thinking people of any political stripe should just say no and back candidates who are interested in real solutions to real problems.
Romney vs. Trump
Here we have the last Republican nominee sagavely attacking the current front runner. It suggests to me that Republican leaders are worried the general election may be a lost cause. Maybe it is time for a rational pro-growth, pro-business party to emerge and leave the intolerant fringe behind. A rational pro-growth, pro-business party could embrace policies like clean elections, a universal health care system that takes the burden off employers, investment in education rather than prisons, a rational guest worker program, and a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Donald Trump is not a real Fascist, he just plays one on TV
I have been thinking that Trump is basically a psychopath, someone without normal human emotions or morals, who nonetheless has a very keen sense of how to manipulate other peoples’ emotions and morals for his own gain. This sounds bad, and it is. But the silver lining, if it is true, is that although he is appealing to some very ugly impulses in a certain segment of the public now, he would become more moderate if he were elected and had to appeal to the full range of the people. However, it turns out that people said the same thing about Hitler in 1922.
instrinsic vs. utilitarian value of nature
This thoughtful opinion piece in Trends in Ecology and Evolution talks about resolving conflicts between moral and economic arguments for conservation.
Biodiversity exists at multiple levels of organization, including at the levels of genes, populations, species, and ecosystems [11]. Although it might be argued that intrinsic value is associated with all levels of biological organization, this interpretation is of no practical use for planning and decision-making. If all levels of biological organization have equal intrinsic value, and if all species are regarded as having equal intrinsic value, then the implication is that no harm can be done in any way to any component of biodiversity [I don’t quite follow this last sentence…]. The concept of intrinsic value applied equally to all of nature therefore offers no way to prioritize and points only toward a halt to human progress because most human developments impact on nature to some degree. In practice, then, intrinsic value is commonly associated with certain species and ecosystems…
Species conservation and the beauty of nature are reasons for conservation commonly associated with intrinsic and non-use values. For instance, it can be regarded as morally right to maintain the existence of tigers in the wild, and to conserve the beauty of Yosemite Valley, regardless of human use. But accepting this should not preclude accepting arguments for conservation that are based on utilitarian value, particularly when we consider different levels of biological organization. For instance, populations of species provide vital ecosystem services such as pollination, such that loss of a population can cause loss of an ecosystem service that has utilitarian value. If the continued existence of populations of the species elsewhere means that the species itself is not threatened, or if the population lives in a human-dominated, non-wild landscape, then arguments for the intrinsic value of species and ecosystems are inadequate. Given that population declines are perhaps the most prevalent aspect of biodiversity loss [14], failure to recognize the utilitarian value of populations does a disservice to conservation.
Viewing reasons for conserving nature at different levels of biological organization thus clarifies when alternative arguments are most relevant, in particular that arguments based on intrinsic value are most commonly associated with species and ecosystem levels. This takes us some way toward melding utilitarian and intrinsic reasons for conservation, enabling both to be included within a multifaceted approach.
The article also wades into the debate on monetization.
I agree with using all the tools. We also have to recognize that even reasonable people have a range of values, and there are also unreasonable people out there, and we have to find arguments that appeal to a critical mass of people in order to make any progress.
green roofs
Here’s a green roof modeling study from Singapore. Green roofs reduce peak flows enough to help with flooding. They reduce the volume of runoff a little bit through increased evapotranspiration, which would have an effect on the water supply in Singapore where urban runoff is used as a water source.
Low-impact development (LID) comprises a broad spectrum of stormwater management technologies for mitigating the impacts of urbanization on hydrological processes. Among these technologies, green roofs are one of the most adopted solutions, especially in densely populated metropolitan areas, where roofs take up a significant portion of the impervious surfaces and land areas are scarce. While the in situ hydrological performance of green roofs—i.e., reduction of runoff volume and peak discharge—is well addressed in literature, less is known about their impact on stormwater management and reuse activities at a catchment or city scale. This study developed an integrated urban water cycle model (IUWCM) to quantitatively assess the effect of uniform green roof deployment (i.e., 25, 50, and 100% conversion of traditional roofs) over the period 2009–2011 in the Marina Reservoir catchment, a 100-km2100-km2, highly urbanized area located in the heart of Singapore. The IUWCM consists of two components: (1) a physically based model for extensive green roofs integrated within a one-dimensional numerical hydrological-hydraulic catchment model linked with (2) an optimization-based model describing the operation of the downstream, stormwater-fed reservoir. The event-based hydrological performance of green roofs varied significantly throughout the simulation period with a median of about 5% and 12% for the catchment scale reduction of runoff volume and peak discharge (100% conversion of traditional roofs). The high variability and lower performance (with respect to temperate climates) are strongly related to the tropical weather and climatic conditions—e.g., antecedent dry weather period and maximum rainfall intensity. Average annual volume reductions were 0.6, 1.2, and 2.4% for the 25, 50, and 100% green roof scenarios, respectively. The reduction of the stormwater generated at the catchment level through green roof implementation had a positive impact on flood protection along Marina Reservoir shores and the energy costs encountered when operating the reservoir. Vice versa, the drinking water supply, which depends on the amount of available stormwater, decreased due to the evapotranspiration losses from green roofs. Better performance in terms of stormwater reuse could only be obtained by increasing the time of concentration of the catchment. This may be achieved through the combination of green roofs with other LID structures.
nice maps
I’m always looking for ways to make nicer maps. Here are a number of resources.
- Cartographer’s Toolkit: Colors, Typography, Patterns
- GIS Cartography: A Guide to Effective Map Design
- QGIS Map Design
February 2016 in Review
I’m going to try picking the three most frightening posts, three most hopeful posts, and three most interesting posts (that are not particularly frightening or hopeful) from February.
3 most frightening posts
- Collapsing oil prices played a big role in bringing down the Soviet Union, and now are likely to cause chaos in societies across Africa and the Middle East. On the other hand, oil prices just might come roaring back.
- 77% of jobs in China may be threatened by automation.
- Drought has become severe in some very populous areas of Southeast Asia.
3 most hopeful posts
- There are some practical ideas for how to develop potentially dangerous technologies more safely.
- There is some solid math behind Bernie Sanders’s economic plan. And a Sanders-Warren ticket just might save us from the next crippling financial crisis.
- A variable carbon tax could be phased in a way that takes advantage of upswings in the economy without exacerbating the downswings.
3 most interesting posts
- The U.S. election season certainly is getting interesting, although not really in a good way. ontheissues.org has a useful summary of where U.S. political candidates stand…what are the words I’m looking for…on the the issues. Nate Silver has an interesting online tool that lets you play around with how various demographic groups tend to vote.
- Fire trucks don’t really have to be so big.
- Titanium dioxide is the reason Oreo filling is so white.
the man’s intellectual property rights
The founder of the Creative Commons license committed suicide after being threatened with 95 years in prison over a copyright violation. The article goes through some of the arguments against standard copyright.
‘Open access’ is an anodyne term for a profoundly transformative idea. Advocates argue that academic research should be made freely available to the world at the time of publication, and that access should not be contingent on an individual’s or institution’s ability to afford a subscription to a given journal or database. Academic authors do not usually write for profit; rather, their work aims to augment the common store of knowledge. What’s more, since the government often funds their research, it’s not a stretch to claim that the fruits of that research should belong to the public. So why should this material be subject to the same access restrictions as a mystery bestseller or a Hollywood film? As with many other inexplicable policies, the blame belongs to a vestigial middleman.
When a university professor finishes a research project, she typically records her results in an academic paper, which she submits for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. These journals—the reputable ones, at least—operate via volunteers, with authors, editors, and peer reviewers all working for free. Nobody gets paid, or expects to get paid, except the publisher. In exchange for the publisher’s services, which include coordinating the publication and peer-review processes, formatting, and distribution, the author concedes the copyright to her article in perpetuity. It’s a simple trade: the academic publisher assumes the financial risk of preparing and distributing an esoteric work for which there’s a limited audience and in exchange retains all the profits that might come from its sale.
In commercial trade publishing, publishers realise profit by selling a book for a relatively low price to a wide audience. Since no wide audience exists for academic papers, academic publishers realise profit by selling them at high prices to the few entities who can’t do without them—libraries and scholars, mostly—which renders these papers functionally inaccessible to the casual or impoverished user.
self-driving cars
Here’s an interesting TED talk on self-driving cars. They are going to save a lot of lives. I think arguments against them like this one on NPR are ignorant at best and immoral at worst. If you can save a million lives a year and you choose not to do it, you are instantly one of history’s mass murderers. Even if there is some bizarre special case someone can cite where a computer might kill someone and a person might not, that’s going to be extremely rare.