So here is a work in progress of what i'm doing at the min
Introduction
So I have an idea to study the concept of truth. I will do this by examining 14 pieces of text written by the following wonderful authors.
1. Joe Mott It’s Wayne’s world 10th April
2. David Cameron Libya’s Pathway to Peace 14th April
3. David Mitchell Tory toffs should be criticised for
their policies – not their
backgrounds 3rd April
4. Tim Harford Don’t blame the (mostly) efficient
N markets hypothesis 16th April
5. Charlie Brooker
6. Charlie Scheen
7. Lord Digby jones
8. Ben Goldacre
9. Barrac Obama
10. Ben Goldacre
11. Nick Griffin
12. Nick Clegg
13. Peter Griffin Can’t touch me
14. Joe Strummer Career Opportunities
I was thinking comparing just the third, last and second from last paragraph or verse/chorus (I got bored and added songs by Joe Strummer and Peter Griffin) but think first I will collect all the data and see if I can just write a brief summary of each piece. I’ll try to write down what points the author is trying to make, what their argument is and what their evidence is. This methodology is almost sure to change though. Maybe once I´m finished I´ll even try and share the results with the authors and see if they can give me any feedback.
For all of the authors I have taken their most recent pieces today (or at least the day I started writing this) being Saturday the 16th of April, apart from Peter Griffin and Joe Strummer where I have chosen my favourite songs they have done. For the sake of completion this version has the raw text version of all my data here if anybody wants to check.
1. Joe Mott – It’s Wayne’s world (2011)
SO Wayne Rooney swore at a camera – big bloomin’ deal.
It was naughty and didn’t look very pleasant but was it really worthy of him losing a deal with a sponsor and being denied the right to work? In principle, yes, but in reality, no.
You know I’m no fan of the overpaid, stroppy Rooney but we live in a society where politicians openly lie to our faces on a daily basis. And they go unpunished.
I’m not talking about Jim Devine’s expenses scam, I mean complete about-turns in policies. But more important than that, we live in a world that is no longer concerned with etiquette…and all that stuff.
Wayne’s way is THE way. Extreme anger, foul language and a complete lack of respect for anyone or anything is the culture we have created.
In towns and cities all over this country, people act inappropriately and then become violently in-censed when they are told to behave themselves.
I took the Doris to London’s Natural History Museum the other day – because I’m smooth like that – and we encountered a group of nine-year-old children who typified what we’ve become.
As we stood looking at an ants’ nest in a glass cabinet, two of these cherubs – wearing uniforms from posh schools – rushed over and pushed between us and the exhibit.
After a few seconds of being uncomfortably squashed against the glass, the child looked up and said “Excuse me”, confidently expecting two grown adults to move for her.
“I was here first,” was my missus’ reply.
I was too gobsmacked to say anything. Not as surprised as the youngster though. Wide-eyed with amazement, she stared at us, before moving away.
A minute later, another child ran up and – not pushing in – stated loudly: “I was here first.” The bloody cheek! Why have we allowed it to come to this?
We both swore we’d bring kids up properly if we had them – with manners. But then the truth struck me: that would be doing them a disservice.
A well-mannered child who didn’t push others out of the way and kick off the moment they were told “No” would simply be a victim.
A sheep in a field of wolves. My offspring shall take what they want and lash out when challenged, to ensure anyone who disagrees with them is left more shaken than a Japanese beach goer.
Of course we mustn’t really train our nippers to be brutal horrors but we have to prepare them for the real world. The “F” word no longer shocks anyone.
Gordon Ramsay made a TV career out of it. And Rooney is the true face of Britain today. Deal with it.
2. David Cameron - Libya’s Pathway to Peace (Cameron, Obama & Sarkozy 2011)
Together with our NATO allies and coalition partners, the United States, France and Britain have been united from the start in responding to the crisis in Libya, and we are united on what needs to happen in order to end it.
Even as we continue our military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve just that.
We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place. As Libya descended into chaos with Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi attacking his own people, the Arab League called for action. The Libyan opposition called for help. And the people of Libya looked to the world in their hour of need. In an historic resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorized all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them. By responding immediately, our countries, together with an international coalition, halted the advance of Qaddafi’s forces and prevented the bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi.
Tens of thousands of lives have been protected. But the people of Libya are still suffering terrible horrors at Qaddafi’s hands each and every day. His rockets and shells rained down on defenseless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misurata is enduring a medieval siege, as Qaddafi tries to strangle its population into submission. The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily.
Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an un-conscionable betrayal.
Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Qadda-fi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.
There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya — a future without Qaddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosper-ity and security of her people. This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words. The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.
This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world. These countries came together in London on March 29 and founded a Contact Group which met this week in Doha to support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people.
Today, NATO and our partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate. But it will be the people of Libya, not the U.N., who choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders, and write the next chapter in their history.
Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolu-tions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.
Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States. David Cameron is prime minister of Brit-ain and Nicolas Sarkozy is president of France.
3. David Mitchell – Tory toffs should be criticised for their policies – not for their backgrounds (2011)
A new series of Would I Lie to You?, a TV panel show on which I'm a team captain, has just been recorded. The other captain, Lee Mack, is similar to me in many ways: we're both comedians; we're about the same age; we write as well as perform; we have both acted in sketch shows and sitcoms as well as appearing in panel games; we're both team captains on Would I Lie to You?. But, for the comic purposes of the show, our differences are emphasised. Since Lee comes from Southport and has a Lancastrian accent and I'm a southerner who sounds vaguely RP, he's characterised as a woodbine-smoking Jarrow marcher whose whippet died of rickets and I'm Bertie Wooster but with a less burning sense of social injustice. We eat only tripe and swan respectively.
Illustration by David Foldvari.
Comic stereotyping is handy on shows like that. It means other panellists can tap into the audience's cultural assumptions about being "northern" or "posh", which is easier than searching for shared assumptions about our inconveniently specific personalities, and allows us either to play up to the stereotypes, to subvert them or to pretend to be irritated when Rob Brydon makes reference to them, before countering with a remark based on lazy stereotyping of the Welsh. (I'm half Welsh myself so I lose a little part of my soul every time I do that, but then getting a laugh can fill the most cavernous vacuums in the soul.)
This is all fine as a joke-generating technique. Everyone's taking it as well as dishing it out and, be-cause our primary aim is the shared one of making a comedy show, we can emphasise differences without being divisive. Problems only arise when people start to take stereotyping seriously: many a true word may be spoken in jest but there's also a lot of exaggeration and nonsense.
The government suffers from this. There are several men in the cabinet who've inherited money and been sent to expensive schools: toffs basically. That provides comic opportunities to take the piss out of them, and the handful of true words spoken in those many jests imply that ministers' wealthy backgrounds might make them act in the interests of money and privilege, not those of the people who voted for them, let alone the broader electorate. And that their privilege-skewed life experienc-es mean they won't know what Britain is really like if you're poor, so that, even if they have com-passionate instincts, they will never have been confronted by the injustices to provoke that compas-sion. So we joke about little Lord Fauntleroy sipping champagne in a cash-lined peasant-skin yacht, squeaking: "No more benefits!"
But it's wrong to infer from the jokes that being born into a rich family means you're a bad person or that judging politicians on their backgrounds rather than their actions is fair. That attitude leads to behaviour such as that exhibited by Labour in the Crewe and Nantwich byelection campaign of 2008. Labour activists targeted the wealth of the Tory candidate rather than anything he said, mocked him by dressing up in top hats and used the slogan: "Do you want a Tory con man or a Dunwoody?", referring to the fact that their candidate was the daughter of the late Gwyneth Dun-woody, the previous MP.
The hypocrisy of this call to heredity over riches is breathtaking. The justification for suspicion of the posh is the fear that their money or connections may give them unwarranted advantages. But that's not an accusation you're on safe ground making if you're the last MP's daughter.
I reckon it's OK to be snide about Tory poshness while complaining about the cuts, as long as you're clear that it's the cuts you think are unacceptable, not the poshness. But I'm slightly worried that some people are forgetting that distinction and, as someone who's often been called posh, that makes me nervous. So does a tweet I was sent last Saturday, the day of both the cuts protests and the Boat Race: "you and the Tristrams off to watch plummy cunts row today? [I wasn't.] A day for those with the means to help themselves."
I know it's unwise to take any individual remark from the internet seriously but, from what I can tell, this tweeter isn't alone in lazily associating the Boat Race, and indeed anything to do with Ox-bridge, with unaccountable privilege. As someone who went to Cambridge, this makes me feel sad – and a bit guilty that, for ease of comedy, I've allowed myself to be stereotyped as posher than I am, in a way that might allow people to assume that Cambridge is more of a bastion of privilege than it is.
I'm not denying that the average Oxbridge student is higher up the class system than the average citizen, but that doesn't make it right to characterise those universities as higher education equiva-lents of Eton and Harrow when they're state-funded institutions. They used to be free to anyone who achieved the required grades and, even now, they'll cost no more than many of their less eminent rivals. Publicly referring to their annual rowing race as if it's an aristocrats-only water fight only worsens the regrettable, and for many years diminishing, class imbalance within them. It will put off applicants who would both benefit from and benefit Oxbridge.
Our society is deeply divided. Occupying Fortnum & Mason, a luxury food shop flourishing despite austerity, is a neat way of illustrating that. Pointing out that some people chose to watch a student sporting fixture instead of protesting is not. Anyway, as a Tory newspaper noted with consternation, at least one of the Fortnum occupants, Adam Ramsay, is incredibly posh himself: his family have a castle. The paper implied that, because of his birth, his opposition to government cuts was hypocrit-ical – after all, everything's all right for him. In response he said: "I think people with all kinds of backgrounds are starting to see that these cuts threaten to undermine our economy and ruin people's lives."
That's the key. People's backgrounds, or our inaccurate assumptions about them, mustn't be used as a reason to ignore what they say – to dismiss them with: "Well, you would say that!" By disregard-ing people's views as merely a product of their upbringing, you also absolve them of responsibility for them. You make George Osborne's rich family excuse his policies – he doesn't know any better, so he would do that. Well, it's not an excuse, even if it might be a reason. And speculating about that is much less important than listening to his arguments and explaining why they're wrong.
4. Tim Harford – Don’t blame the (mostly) efficient market hypothesis (2011)
I’m going to defend the poor old efficient markets hypothesis. Somebody has to. It’s been getting quite a pounding since the credit crunch began. David Wighton of The Times commented in January 2009, “The theory was officially declared dead at the World Economic Forum in Davos. There were no mourners.” In June of that year, Roger Lowenstein wrote in The Washington Post, “The upside of the current Great Recession is that it could drive a stake through the heart of the academic nostrum known as the efficient-market hypothesis.” More recently, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, authors of The Road from Ruin, have argued that the EMH was partly responsible for the crisis.
It’s probably worth pausing for a moment to recall what the EMH actually means. It’s not a Reaganite claim about the superiority of free markets over government intervention; it’s a far nar-rower and more technical claim about the price of liquid assets such as shares or corporate bonds. It is, nevertheless, hugely important.
The EMH has several forms. The weakest says that not only is past performance no guarantee of future performance, but nothing about the way a share’s price has bounced around in the past tells you anything about how it will move in the future. The strongest says that the market price is the correct price: that all privately and publicly available information that might be relevant to the value of a share is already reflected in today’s price. The weak form tells you not to listen to stock pickers who point to recently soaring shares. The strong form tells you not to bother doing any research into shares, because it cannot possibly do you any good.
In its strong form, the EMH cannot always be true. (How would the market become so efficient, since no rational participants would bother with research?) Perhaps it is never true, although as my colleague John Kay has pointed out, the difference between the EMH usually being true and always being true may be difference enough to explain the likes of Warren Buffett.
But did the EMH lead to the crisis? Not directly, for sure. The first thing the EMH would tell you is to be suspicious of bond salesmen who claim that structured subprime vehicles can offer high re-wards and almost no risk. I think it is telling that according to Michael Lewis’s book The Big Short, some savvy investors who wanted to bet against subprime mortgages hesitated to do so, for fear that they had missed a trick. They instinctively took the EMH seriously, and only bet heavily against subprime after they had met the subprime enthusiasts and concluded they really were as foolish in person as their strategies suggested. The EMH encourages scepticism, not gullibility, about sure-thing investments.
It is more defensible to suggest that the EMH worked wickedness indirectly, through the attitude of regulators. Matthew Bishop tells me that he sees three ways in which the EMH was responsible for the crisis. First, it seduced Alan Greenspan into believing either that bubbles never happened, or that if they did there was no hope that the Federal Reserve could spot them and intervene. Second, the EMH motivated “mark-to-market” accounting rules, which put banks in an impossible situation when prices for their assets evaporated. Third, the EMH encouraged the view that executives could not manipulate the share prices of their companies, so it was perfectly reasonable to use stock op-tions for executive pay. These are cogent points. Regulators, then, should be wary of the EMH.
Yet I remain convinced that the efficient markets hypothesis should be a lodestar for ordinary inves-tors. It suggests the following strategy: choose a range of shares or low-cost index trackers and in-vest in them gradually without trying to be too clever. If only a few more bankers had taken such advice seriously.
Peter Griffin – can´t touch me (Youtube 2011a) lyrics taken Metrolyrics (2011)
Aahhh Can't touch me, can't touch me
Just like the bad guy from Lethal Weapon 2
I've got diplomatic immunity, so Hammer you can't sue
I can write graffiti, even jaywalk in the street
I can riot, loot, not give a hoot, and touch your sister's teat
Can't touch me!
Can't touch me!
Can't touch me
Stop! Peter time
I'm a big shot, there's no doubt
Light a fire then pee it out
Don't like it, kiss my rump
Just for a minute, let's all do the bump
Can't touch me!
Yea do the Peter Griffin Bump
Can't touch me!
I'm Presidential Peter
Interns think I'm hot
Don't care if your handicapped
I'll still park in your spot
I've been around the world
From Hartford to Backbay
It's Peter, go Peter, MC Peter, yo Peter
Let's see Regis rap this way
Can't touch me!
(spoken) Except you, you can touch me.
Joe Strummer, Career Opportunities (youtube 2011b) lyrics taken from Lyricsdepot.com (2011)
The offered me the office, offered me the
shop
They said I'd better take anything they'd got
Do you wanna make tea at the BBC?
Do you wanna be, do you really wanna be a cop?
Career opportunities are the ones that never knock
Every job they offer you is to keep you out the dock
Career opportunity, the ones that never knock
I hate the army an' I hate the R.A.F.
I don't wanna go fighting in the tropical heat
I hate the civil service rules
And I won't open letter bombs for you
Bus driver....ambulance man....ticket inspector
They're gonna have to introduce conscription
They're gonna have to take away my prescription
If they wanna get me making toys
If they wanna get me, well, I got no choice
Careers
Careers
Careers
Ain't never gonna knock
References
Cameron, D., Obama, B. & Sarkozy, N. (2011) ‘Libya’s Pathway to Peace’ available from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html accessed [17 Apr 2011]
Harford, T. (2011) ‘Don’t blame the (mostly) efficient markets hypothesis’ available from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d51d6f5c-656d-11e0-b150-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Jms19AD7 accessed [17 Apr 2011]
Mitchell, D. (2011) ‘Tory toffs should be criticised for their policies - not their backgrounds’ available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/03/george-osborne-oxbridge-david-mitchell accessed [17 Apr 2011]
Mott, J. (2011) ‘Wrong end of the schtick’ available from http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/186564/Wrong-end-of-the-schtick/ accessed [17 Apr 2011]
Lyricsdepot 2011 ‘Career opportunities’ available from http://www.lyricsdepot.com/the-clash/career-opportunities.html accessed [16 Apr 2011]
Metrolyrics 2011 ‘Can’t touch me’ available from http://www.metrolyrics.com/cant-touch-me-lyrics-peter-griffin.html accessed [16 Apr 2011].
Youtube 2011a ‘Can’t touch me’ available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAzwgAUGzM8 accessed [16 Apr 2011]
Youtube 2011b ‘Career opportunities’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOrkPIZ1JU accessed [16 Apr 2011]
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Monday, 21 March 2011
starting again
Ok so looking over what I did before I think the most useful thing is the dictionary of terms below.
Dictionary of Terms
This dictionary of terms is not meant to be a dictionary of sociology of how words are most commonly used, it simply provides an explanation of what I mean when I use one of these contestable terms. I still need to add in definitions on Macroeconomics Microeconomics ETR Carbon Trading Forth Cause
Dictionary of Terms
Economy
The economy or macro-economy is the system of which all human activity is part.
Environmental-macroeconomy
Environmental-macroeconomics is concerned with the volume of transactions between the Macro-Economy and Ecosystem.
Environmental-microeconomy
Environmental-microeconomy is concerned with the value of things within the ecosystem in a specific field.
Ecosystem
The ecosystem is a planet’s ability to absorb and produce various substances and energies. It is in constant change, however this changes takes place on a scale upon which the span of human existence in a blip.
Formal-Institution
These Institutions have rigid roles set down in law and policy documents such as government departments or businesses.
Formal-roles
These roles have rigid expectations set down in law and policy documents such as that of policeman or head chef.
Individual
Individuals are 1 of the 3 core components of society (Individuals, Roles and Institutions). People, human beings, all of whom take on varying Roles within Institutions.
Informal-Institution
These institutions roles are not set down in law or policy documents in the same clear way as Formal-institutions although sometimes they are just as or even more rigid than those in Formal-institutions and extreme deviation from the roles can result in the breaking of laws. An example of an Informal-Institution is the family or group of friends.
Informal-roles
These roles have relatively unclear expectations for the most part although sometimes they are just as or even more rigid than those for Formal-roles.
Institution
Institutions are 1 of the 3 core components of society (Individuals, Roles and Institutions). They are collections of various roles undertaken by various individuals. There are 2 types of institutions Formal-Institutions and Informal-Institutions.
Internationalisation
Internationalisation is the growth of trade and interdependence between countries (Scholte 2000).
Liberalisation
Liberalisation is the process of removing bars to international trade and the opening up of markets and a decrease in state regulation (Scholte 2000).
Morality or System of Morality
Morality or a system of morality is a way of deciding what outcomes are desirable or undesirable; although some choices may seem utterly mundane they still involve a system of morality.
Even if the choice between 2 different types of chocolate bars did not involve the complications around production, transportation as well as the economic relations between the producers and distributors and was simply about the taste it is still a moral choice. An individual with who has decided it is more moral (in that it makes them happier) to abstain from some pleasures like chocolate will make a different choice from an individual with a more hedonic moral system.
Someone or something that is acting morally is achieving the goals of the system of morality to which they adhere.
Research
Research is a systematic process that generally consists of 3 steps
1. A subject is chosen and the sources of evidence needed to be examined to understand the subject is decided
2. data is collected from this evidence
3. the data is analysed to draw conclusions sometimes in relation to an initial hypothesis
However this is a massive oversimplification, the way evidence is deemed to be of importance, data is collected and data analysed can vary greatly with each step being split into any number of further steps or steps repeated.
Role
A role is a label given to an individual that has certain expectations and duties tied to it normally as part of an institution. There are 2 types of roles, Formal-roles and Informal-roles.
Society
A society collection of institutions, roles and individuals, again this is an oversimplification.
Sustainability / Sustainable
Historically it appears to mean the ability to maintain balance of a certain state or process in a system (Wikipedia 2009). In general this term is normally now a prefix to objects, processes or organisations. This term is applied either to objects, processes or organisations and I will set out specific definitions for each of those uses.
When an object is described as sustainable such as sustainable cod or sustainable shoes it means that the processes that have given rise to the object are sustainable processes
When a process is described as sustainable such as sustainable fishing or sustainable flying it means that the process itself is sustainable.
When an organisation is described as sustainable such as the sustainable fishing company or sustainable homes (http://www.sustainablehomes.co.uk/whoweare.aspx) it means that organisation only carries out process that our sustainable.
Looking at these definitions we can see that the root of sustainability’s meaning comes from what sustainable processes are. A process is sustainable if it can be carried or for the foreseeable future OR can be terminated without harming the system within which it exists.
Universalisation
Universalisation is the process of certain objects, roles and institutions becoming global and typical around the world. Things like the Gregorian calendar, business suits and so forth are examples of universal objects and concepts (Scholte 2000).
Westernisation
Westernisation is a certain type of Universalisation where certain features of modernity such as capitalism, rationalism, urbanism and individualism become global (Scholte 2000).
References
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) // The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge// London: Penguin Books
Daly, H. (1991) ‘Elements of Environmental-macroeconomics.’ in Ecological Economics: The science and Management of Sustainability ed. By Costanza, R. New York: Columbia University press 32-46
Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics Cambridge: Polity Press
Lovelock, J. (2006) The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity London: Allen Lane
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalisation: a critical introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan
Wikipedia (2009) Sustainability [online] available from accessed [24 Oct. 09]
I think one of the biggest problems when discussing anything is that people disagree simply because they attach different meanings to different words. So I am definitely going to keep this and expand on it. I´ve saved a copy off-line that I will try and keep up to date as well as a back up.
Looking at my work before I was much more interested in developing some kind of methodology for decision making. I think I was getting a bit ahead of my self though, the first thing I want to do with this blog is show the need for a new way of making decisions. I want to show that modern philosophy, science and politics most important task right now is to provide this because of the inadequacy of our current methods.
This is because right now I feel the wrong decisions are being made. Right now I am making the wrong choices all the time in my life as is the rest of the world. The main reason I believe this is because of the state of the planet. Right now I think I would be correct in saying the debate about climate change is over and that we make an undeniable impact on the planet and if we continue impacting the planet in the way we do we will see the end of human civilisation as we know it (I´m gonna pop civilisation in the DoT [Dictionary of Terms] as a collection of existing institutions, roles and individuals with prior knowledge of past institutions roles and individuals). If anybody has any suggestions about the entries in DoT I´d love to hear them.
I think the most comprehensive proof of the danger to civilisation posed by climate change is shown by the IPCC. To be honest if you want to debate of discuss the validity of climate change of or the dangers it poses I´d rather you just, well go and kill your self not only for the survival of the human race but because I think there are much more important discussions to be had. However I could be wrong maybe if you have some kinda earth shattering revelation about the whole subject please let me know.
Anyhow I think its important to examine why decisions are being taken / not being taken right now that encourage climate change and risk the end of human civilisation. This isn´t the only problem I see right now though. Everywhere I look I see irrationality and injustice, when I go into the city centre I will pass homeless people, when I switch on the TV I will see undeserved riches enjoyed by celebrities juxtaposed with undeserved suffering and poverty. I don´t understand why we don´t all go to David Beckham's house and say ¨listen Dave tomorrow people will die of starvation if we don´t get them some food, so we´ve taken 90% of your money and we´d like you to sell off another 90% of your possessions and we´ve used this to feed some of those people. It´s not just you we´re doing this to all the super rich because to do anything else just seem stupid.¨ Maybe 90% is unfair but you get the gist.
Bah I´m outta time, hopefully next post i´m gonna try and come up with a good old beginning middle and end idea of the piece I´m gonna try and write and move on from there.
Dictionary of Terms
This dictionary of terms is not meant to be a dictionary of sociology of how words are most commonly used, it simply provides an explanation of what I mean when I use one of these contestable terms. I still need to add in definitions on Macroeconomics Microeconomics ETR Carbon Trading Forth Cause
Dictionary of Terms
Economy
The economy or macro-economy is the system of which all human activity is part.
Environmental-macroeconomy
Environmental-macroeconomics is concerned with the volume of transactions between the Macro-Economy and Ecosystem.
Environmental-microeconomy
Environmental-microeconomy is concerned with the value of things within the ecosystem in a specific field.
Ecosystem
The ecosystem is a planet’s ability to absorb and produce various substances and energies. It is in constant change, however this changes takes place on a scale upon which the span of human existence in a blip.
Formal-Institution
These Institutions have rigid roles set down in law and policy documents such as government departments or businesses.
Formal-roles
These roles have rigid expectations set down in law and policy documents such as that of policeman or head chef.
Individual
Individuals are 1 of the 3 core components of society (Individuals, Roles and Institutions). People, human beings, all of whom take on varying Roles within Institutions.
Informal-Institution
These institutions roles are not set down in law or policy documents in the same clear way as Formal-institutions although sometimes they are just as or even more rigid than those in Formal-institutions and extreme deviation from the roles can result in the breaking of laws. An example of an Informal-Institution is the family or group of friends.
Informal-roles
These roles have relatively unclear expectations for the most part although sometimes they are just as or even more rigid than those for Formal-roles.
Institution
Institutions are 1 of the 3 core components of society (Individuals, Roles and Institutions). They are collections of various roles undertaken by various individuals. There are 2 types of institutions Formal-Institutions and Informal-Institutions.
Internationalisation
Internationalisation is the growth of trade and interdependence between countries (Scholte 2000).
Liberalisation
Liberalisation is the process of removing bars to international trade and the opening up of markets and a decrease in state regulation (Scholte 2000).
Morality or System of Morality
Morality or a system of morality is a way of deciding what outcomes are desirable or undesirable; although some choices may seem utterly mundane they still involve a system of morality.
Even if the choice between 2 different types of chocolate bars did not involve the complications around production, transportation as well as the economic relations between the producers and distributors and was simply about the taste it is still a moral choice. An individual with who has decided it is more moral (in that it makes them happier) to abstain from some pleasures like chocolate will make a different choice from an individual with a more hedonic moral system.
Someone or something that is acting morally is achieving the goals of the system of morality to which they adhere.
Research
Research is a systematic process that generally consists of 3 steps
1. A subject is chosen and the sources of evidence needed to be examined to understand the subject is decided
2. data is collected from this evidence
3. the data is analysed to draw conclusions sometimes in relation to an initial hypothesis
However this is a massive oversimplification, the way evidence is deemed to be of importance, data is collected and data analysed can vary greatly with each step being split into any number of further steps or steps repeated.
Role
A role is a label given to an individual that has certain expectations and duties tied to it normally as part of an institution. There are 2 types of roles, Formal-roles and Informal-roles.
Society
A society collection of institutions, roles and individuals, again this is an oversimplification.
Sustainability / Sustainable
Historically it appears to mean the ability to maintain balance of a certain state or process in a system (Wikipedia 2009). In general this term is normally now a prefix to objects, processes or organisations. This term is applied either to objects, processes or organisations and I will set out specific definitions for each of those uses.
When an object is described as sustainable such as sustainable cod or sustainable shoes it means that the processes that have given rise to the object are sustainable processes
When a process is described as sustainable such as sustainable fishing or sustainable flying it means that the process itself is sustainable.
When an organisation is described as sustainable such as the sustainable fishing company or sustainable homes (http://www.sustainablehomes.co.uk/whoweare.aspx) it means that organisation only carries out process that our sustainable.
Looking at these definitions we can see that the root of sustainability’s meaning comes from what sustainable processes are. A process is sustainable if it can be carried or for the foreseeable future OR can be terminated without harming the system within which it exists.
Universalisation
Universalisation is the process of certain objects, roles and institutions becoming global and typical around the world. Things like the Gregorian calendar, business suits and so forth are examples of universal objects and concepts (Scholte 2000).
Westernisation
Westernisation is a certain type of Universalisation where certain features of modernity such as capitalism, rationalism, urbanism and individualism become global (Scholte 2000).
References
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) // The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge// London: Penguin Books
Daly, H. (1991) ‘Elements of Environmental-macroeconomics.’ in Ecological Economics: The science and Management of Sustainability ed. By Costanza, R. New York: Columbia University press 32-46
Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics Cambridge: Polity Press
Lovelock, J. (2006) The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity London: Allen Lane
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalisation: a critical introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan
Wikipedia (2009) Sustainability [online] available from
I think one of the biggest problems when discussing anything is that people disagree simply because they attach different meanings to different words. So I am definitely going to keep this and expand on it. I´ve saved a copy off-line that I will try and keep up to date as well as a back up.
Looking at my work before I was much more interested in developing some kind of methodology for decision making. I think I was getting a bit ahead of my self though, the first thing I want to do with this blog is show the need for a new way of making decisions. I want to show that modern philosophy, science and politics most important task right now is to provide this because of the inadequacy of our current methods.
This is because right now I feel the wrong decisions are being made. Right now I am making the wrong choices all the time in my life as is the rest of the world. The main reason I believe this is because of the state of the planet. Right now I think I would be correct in saying the debate about climate change is over and that we make an undeniable impact on the planet and if we continue impacting the planet in the way we do we will see the end of human civilisation as we know it (I´m gonna pop civilisation in the DoT [Dictionary of Terms] as a collection of existing institutions, roles and individuals with prior knowledge of past institutions roles and individuals). If anybody has any suggestions about the entries in DoT I´d love to hear them.
I think the most comprehensive proof of the danger to civilisation posed by climate change is shown by the IPCC. To be honest if you want to debate of discuss the validity of climate change of or the dangers it poses I´d rather you just, well go and kill your self not only for the survival of the human race but because I think there are much more important discussions to be had. However I could be wrong maybe if you have some kinda earth shattering revelation about the whole subject please let me know.
Anyhow I think its important to examine why decisions are being taken / not being taken right now that encourage climate change and risk the end of human civilisation. This isn´t the only problem I see right now though. Everywhere I look I see irrationality and injustice, when I go into the city centre I will pass homeless people, when I switch on the TV I will see undeserved riches enjoyed by celebrities juxtaposed with undeserved suffering and poverty. I don´t understand why we don´t all go to David Beckham's house and say ¨listen Dave tomorrow people will die of starvation if we don´t get them some food, so we´ve taken 90% of your money and we´d like you to sell off another 90% of your possessions and we´ve used this to feed some of those people. It´s not just you we´re doing this to all the super rich because to do anything else just seem stupid.¨ Maybe 90% is unfair but you get the gist.
Bah I´m outta time, hopefully next post i´m gonna try and come up with a good old beginning middle and end idea of the piece I´m gonna try and write and move on from there.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Science of Morality
So its been a while since I've even looked at this. I've not really picked up the ideas or anything but one thing I've really missed since finishing university is discussions on morality. I'm gonna re-read this and then pick back up on how we work out what is right or wrong and how to live the good (or bad) life.
The Moral Need for Sustainable-Research
One worrying thing to consider is that maybe there is no problem in the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem. Maybe the consequences of this relationship will be catastrophic as many scientists think but are acceptable. We currently live in a world with a moral system that allows so much suffering to go on it seems possible a global environmental disaster like climate change could be acceptable to the society we live in if it happened mainly to the right people who already bear the brunt of the hardships of the world. I feel even if this is not the case then society is still in need of a new alternative system of morality.
God is of no importance when it comes to morality and has certainly not been even since there ceased to be any evidence for his hand in creation. This is clear to see if you recognise these 2 points.
1. If we could see god's hand at work in this world giving some indication of what he wanted or did not want from this we could derive Aristotle’s Forth-Cause and build a system of morality around these conclusions. Dawkins and other similar authors have torn this argument apart however. The only place the hand of god can be seen is in the 1986 World Cup quarter-final and can no longer be a source of morality.
2. If god is simply a law giver then his laws are unimportant even if he gives punishment and reward for such things. Imagine if god clearly communicated to us that to wear red on a Tuesday was a sin and we would be sent to hell if we did not wear it and that to wear blue on a Friday was good and we would be sent to heaven if we did. This clearly does not make it wrong to wear red on a Tuesday or right to wear blue on a Friday. God saying something is right should not make it right, indeed a god who’s commands can not be shown to be right or wrong in this world but only in light of his reward or punishment is not worthy of worship or obedience. Even if god has clearly set out his commands in some text to us (which is highly questionable) this alone is not enough build a system of morality on.
So without the option of drawing morality from the natural world or a command giving god where can we find a system of morality? Ultimately like all things morality is a social construction as explained by Berger and Luckmann’s //The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge (1966) and thus relative to the parties that are involved. As such any attempt to find a universal system of morality is impossible especially for the individual who exists in a constantly changing world.
Sustainable research a way of determining morality and success?
However for the institution or formal-role it does not exist in a world that is as fluid as that of the individual. Indeed the world of the institution is much more concrete, and when it deals mainly or even solely with other institutions and individuals in formal-roles its world becomes comparatively much easier to understand than that of the individual.
For example while it is much easier to reach a conclusion to the moral conundrum of weather it is right for someone to intervene when someone is being mugged if that someone is in the formal-role of policeman at the time and not simply just the informal-role of emo music fan. Again it is much easier to decided if it is moral or not for an organisation to explain its funding if organisation is the formal-institution that is running for seats in parliament that year than an informal-institution like Katrina’s pub quiz team.
Already in our society we have set out what the most moral thing for many of our institutions is in the aims and objectives of our government bodies. For example the Policing Pledge (DirectGov 2010) and aims and objectives of the department for work and pensions (Department of work and pensions 2010) give us a clear idea of what we think it is moral for these organisations to do in given circumstances.
However simply because these are the aims and objectives of certain public bodies does not mean that they are the desired aims and objectives of the society within which they function. Often they may be out of step or misunderstood by wider society and shaped by the prejudices of the political elite. By conducting sustainable research in which the opinions of those effected by the policy shaped aims and objectives of such bodies we can see if these aims and objectives are considered moral within society and to what degree. This process can also measure the success of these bodies policies at meeting these objectives as an institution with aims and objectives that our considered sound and moral by the population but whose policies fail to achieve their goals is still not acting morally.
The Moral Need for Sustainable-Research
One worrying thing to consider is that maybe there is no problem in the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem. Maybe the consequences of this relationship will be catastrophic as many scientists think but are acceptable. We currently live in a world with a moral system that allows so much suffering to go on it seems possible a global environmental disaster like climate change could be acceptable to the society we live in if it happened mainly to the right people who already bear the brunt of the hardships of the world. I feel even if this is not the case then society is still in need of a new alternative system of morality.
God is of no importance when it comes to morality and has certainly not been even since there ceased to be any evidence for his hand in creation. This is clear to see if you recognise these 2 points.
1. If we could see god's hand at work in this world giving some indication of what he wanted or did not want from this we could derive Aristotle’s Forth-Cause and build a system of morality around these conclusions. Dawkins and other similar authors have torn this argument apart however. The only place the hand of god can be seen is in the 1986 World Cup quarter-final and can no longer be a source of morality.
2. If god is simply a law giver then his laws are unimportant even if he gives punishment and reward for such things. Imagine if god clearly communicated to us that to wear red on a Tuesday was a sin and we would be sent to hell if we did not wear it and that to wear blue on a Friday was good and we would be sent to heaven if we did. This clearly does not make it wrong to wear red on a Tuesday or right to wear blue on a Friday. God saying something is right should not make it right, indeed a god who’s commands can not be shown to be right or wrong in this world but only in light of his reward or punishment is not worthy of worship or obedience. Even if god has clearly set out his commands in some text to us (which is highly questionable) this alone is not enough build a system of morality on.
So without the option of drawing morality from the natural world or a command giving god where can we find a system of morality? Ultimately like all things morality is a social construction as explained by Berger and Luckmann’s //The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge (1966) and thus relative to the parties that are involved. As such any attempt to find a universal system of morality is impossible especially for the individual who exists in a constantly changing world.
Sustainable research a way of determining morality and success?
However for the institution or formal-role it does not exist in a world that is as fluid as that of the individual. Indeed the world of the institution is much more concrete, and when it deals mainly or even solely with other institutions and individuals in formal-roles its world becomes comparatively much easier to understand than that of the individual.
For example while it is much easier to reach a conclusion to the moral conundrum of weather it is right for someone to intervene when someone is being mugged if that someone is in the formal-role of policeman at the time and not simply just the informal-role of emo music fan. Again it is much easier to decided if it is moral or not for an organisation to explain its funding if organisation is the formal-institution that is running for seats in parliament that year than an informal-institution like Katrina’s pub quiz team.
Already in our society we have set out what the most moral thing for many of our institutions is in the aims and objectives of our government bodies. For example the Policing Pledge (DirectGov 2010) and aims and objectives of the department for work and pensions (Department of work and pensions 2010) give us a clear idea of what we think it is moral for these organisations to do in given circumstances.
However simply because these are the aims and objectives of certain public bodies does not mean that they are the desired aims and objectives of the society within which they function. Often they may be out of step or misunderstood by wider society and shaped by the prejudices of the political elite. By conducting sustainable research in which the opinions of those effected by the policy shaped aims and objectives of such bodies we can see if these aims and objectives are considered moral within society and to what degree. This process can also measure the success of these bodies policies at meeting these objectives as an institution with aims and objectives that our considered sound and moral by the population but whose policies fail to achieve their goals is still not acting morally.
Chapter 1
Introduction Page
Chapter One Why do we need Sustainable Research
Dictionary of Terms
What is Sustainable-research and why use the Term
By ‘Sustainable-research’ in this book I do not simply mean what is normally meant when people mash the word sustainable with another. Sustainable chocolate is just chocolate that manufactures claim to be sustainable in some way most often environmentally. Sustainable-research is not typical research conducted using recycled paper and using carbon offsetting.
Sustainable-research is unlike typical research not a one off process but a continuous one. An institution that uses its existing knowledge to gather data and then analyse regularly applying the findings of this process to all its policies is one that conducts Sustainable-research. Sustainable-research is to institutions like sonar to bats, it is the way they see the world around them and act accordingly.
Why use the term Sustainable-research
In Globlalisation: a critical introduction Jan Aart Scholte (2000:49-84) sets out why we need the term globalisation. Although some authors misunderstand the term and use Globalisation when they mean internationalisation, liberalisation, universalisation and westernisation he argues globalisation is something new and different from all these concepts. ‘Sustainable-research’ is different from existing forms of research in 3 important ways.
1. It is a continuous process with no foreseeable end unless the institution conducting the research also has a foreseeable end.
2. It is not a hidden process open to and understood by only a select few experts but wholly transparent and visible.
Why is sustainable-research necessary
Choices need to be made, constantly and the happiness and well being of all conscious life depends on the outcomes of these choices. So as these choices have to be made, it is better to choose the ones with the most desirable outcomes; however this is very hard to establish. Even once the most desirable outcome has been established it is often even harder to establish which Choices will lead to this desirable outcome. The adoption of sustainable-research by all institutions in society this book argues is the only way that the most desirable outcomes can be established and then the choices that lead to them be made.
The Economic Need for Sustainable-Research
In Elements of environmental macro economics Herman Daly (1991) provides a wonderful metaphor using the loading of a boat to illustrate many of the current environmental challenges we face like CO2 and pollution. Daly asks us to think of the ecosystem as a boat and the load it carries the human impact on the ecosystem or economy. Each boat has a maximum weight it can carry before it falls below its plimsoll line and risks sinking. As the objects are be loaded they can be placed optimally onto the boat to generate the least downward force on the boat, however no amount of optimisation will increase the maximum load the boat will carry. Environmental-Microeconomics is concerned only with optimal loading of the boat, and as Daly points out optimally loaded boats sink, they just sink optimally. It is only Environmental-Macroeconomics that looks at the maximum weight the boat can carry. This clearly demonstrates the problem of scale we now face, how do we keep human activity (The Economy) to a scale that is sustainable in regards to how much the ecosystem can take.
However Daly’s metaphor is flawed in that it is possible in that it oversimplifies the relationship between the Economy and the Ecosystem. Giddens’ argues “Nature only becomes a beneficent force once it has been largely subjected to human control; for many who live close to it, nature maybe hostile and feared” (1994:209). Also he argues mastery over nature is not the same as harming it, in fact in some ways ‘mastery’ over nature can be as much about caring for it as destroying it and actually about maintaining harmony (1994:209). We cannot simply reduce the amount we take from the ecosystem or dump into it, indeed even if it were possible without condemning the majority of the world’s population to underdevelopment the political will to do so is non-existent. However this does not make the problem go away and the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem may well not be sustainable in any way.
Perhaps a more valid metaphor for the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem is relationship of endosymbiosis between two animals, with the ecosystem as the host and humans as the symbiote. This relationship can be either mutualistic positive for both, commensal positive for one and neutral for the other or parasitic beneficial for one and negative for the other. Environmental-macroeconomics, the exchange between the ecosystem and the human macroeconomy (1991) is the relationship between the host and symbiote. Lovelock’s Gaia theory provides an interesting insight here, if the ecosystem is harmed by a parasite economy, feedback systems will simply create a hostile environment killing the parasite (2006).
Regardless of how far this metaphor can be developed or alternative ones more appropriate there a problem undeniably exists with the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem.
While there are a number of solutions to this problem that have already been put forward such as ETR, Carbon Trading and endless summits they for the most part do not fully address the problem as they very much approach the problem from the Daly point of view that a simple reduction on the amount of cargo loaded onto the boat will solve the problem.
From here I’m going to go into Norgaar (sic?) on the complexity of local ecosystems and economies and how to simply take less is not an option but instead we need to solve the information problem.
The Moral Need for Sustainable-Research
One worrying thing to consider is that maybe there is no problem in the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem. Maybe the consequences of this relationship will be catastrophic as many scientists think but are acceptable. We currently live in a world with a moral system that allows so much suffering to go on it seems possible a global environmental disaster like climate change could be acceptable to the society we live in if it happened mainly to the right people who already bear the brunt of the hardships of the world. I feel even if this is not the case then society is still in need of a new alternative system of morality.
God is of no importance when it comes to morality and has certainly not been even since there ceased to be any evidence for his hand in creation. This is clear to see if you recognise these 2 points.
1. If we could see god's hand at work in this world giving some indication of what he wanted or did not want from this we could derive Aristotle’s Forth-Cause and build a system of morality around these conclusions. Dawkins and other similar authors have torn this argument apart however. The only place the hand of god can be seen is in the 1986 World Cup quarter-final and can no longer be a source of morality.
2. If god is simply a law giver then his laws are unimportant even if he gives punishment and reward for such things. Imagine if god clearly communicated to us that to wear red on a Tuesday was a sin and we would be sent to hell if we did not wear it and that to wear blue on a Friday was good and we would be sent to heaven if we did. This clearly does not make it wrong to wear red on a Tuesday or right to wear blue on a Friday. God saying something is right should not make it right, indeed a god who’s commands can not be shown to be right or wrong in this world but only in light of his reward or punishment is not worthy of worship or obedience. Even if god has clearly set out his commands in some text to us (which is highly questionable) this alone is not enough build a system of morality on.
So without the option of drawing morality from the natural world or a command giving god where can we find a system of morality? Ultimately like all things morality is a social construction as explained by Berger and Luckmann’s //The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge (1966) and thus relative to the parties that are involved. As such any attempt to find a universal system of morality is impossible especially for the individual who exists in a constantly changing world.
Sustainable research a way of determining morality and success?
However for the institution or formal-role it does not exist in a world that is as fluid as that of the individual. Indeed the world of the institution is much more concrete, and when it deals mainly or even solely with other institutions and individuals in formal-roles its world becomes comparatively much easier to understand than that of the individual.
For example while it is much easier to reach a conclusion to the moral conundrum of weather it is right for someone to intervene when someone is being mugged if that someone is in the formal-role of policeman at the time and not simply just the informal-role of emo music fan. Again it is much easier to decided if it is moral or not for an organisation to explain its funding if organisation is the formal-institution that is running for seats in parliament that year than an informal-institution like Katrina’s pub quiz team.
Already in our society we have set out what the most moral thing for many of our institutions is in the aims and objectives of our government bodies. For example the Policing Pledge (DirectGov 2010) and aims and objectives of the department for work and pensions (Department of work and pensions 2010) give us a clear idea of what we think it is moral for these organisations to do in given circumstances.
However simply because these are the aims and objectives of certain public bodies does not mean that they are the desired aims and objectives of the society within which they function. Often they may be out of step or misunderstood by wider society and shaped by the prejudices of the political elite. By conducting sustainable research in which the opinions of those effected by the policy shaped aims and objectives of such bodies we can see if these aims and objectives are considered moral within society and to what degree. This process can also measure the success of these bodies policies at meeting these objectives as an institution with aims and objectives that our considered sound and moral by the population but whose policies fail to achieve their goals is still not acting morally.
References for this Section
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) // The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge// London: Penguin Books
Daly, H. (1991) ‘Elements of Environmental-macroeconomics.’ in Ecological Economics: The science and Management of Sustainability ed. By Costanza, R. New York: Columbia University press 32-46
Department for Work and Pensions (2010) Vision, aims and values [online] available from
DirectGov (2010) The policing pledge [online] available from accessed [21 Jan. 10]
Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics Cambridge: Polity Press
Lovelock, J. (2006) The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity London: Allen Lane
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalisation: a critical introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan
Wikipedia (2009) Sustainability [online] available from accessed [24 Oct. 09]
Introduction Page
Chapter One Why do we need Sustainable Research
Dictionary of Terms
Chapter One Why do we need Sustainable Research
Dictionary of Terms
What is Sustainable-research and why use the Term
By ‘Sustainable-research’ in this book I do not simply mean what is normally meant when people mash the word sustainable with another. Sustainable chocolate is just chocolate that manufactures claim to be sustainable in some way most often environmentally. Sustainable-research is not typical research conducted using recycled paper and using carbon offsetting.
Sustainable-research is unlike typical research not a one off process but a continuous one. An institution that uses its existing knowledge to gather data and then analyse regularly applying the findings of this process to all its policies is one that conducts Sustainable-research. Sustainable-research is to institutions like sonar to bats, it is the way they see the world around them and act accordingly.
Why use the term Sustainable-research
In Globlalisation: a critical introduction Jan Aart Scholte (2000:49-84) sets out why we need the term globalisation. Although some authors misunderstand the term and use Globalisation when they mean internationalisation, liberalisation, universalisation and westernisation he argues globalisation is something new and different from all these concepts. ‘Sustainable-research’ is different from existing forms of research in 3 important ways.
1. It is a continuous process with no foreseeable end unless the institution conducting the research also has a foreseeable end.
2. It is not a hidden process open to and understood by only a select few experts but wholly transparent and visible.
Why is sustainable-research necessary
Choices need to be made, constantly and the happiness and well being of all conscious life depends on the outcomes of these choices. So as these choices have to be made, it is better to choose the ones with the most desirable outcomes; however this is very hard to establish. Even once the most desirable outcome has been established it is often even harder to establish which Choices will lead to this desirable outcome. The adoption of sustainable-research by all institutions in society this book argues is the only way that the most desirable outcomes can be established and then the choices that lead to them be made.
The Economic Need for Sustainable-Research
In Elements of environmental macro economics Herman Daly (1991) provides a wonderful metaphor using the loading of a boat to illustrate many of the current environmental challenges we face like CO2 and pollution. Daly asks us to think of the ecosystem as a boat and the load it carries the human impact on the ecosystem or economy. Each boat has a maximum weight it can carry before it falls below its plimsoll line and risks sinking. As the objects are be loaded they can be placed optimally onto the boat to generate the least downward force on the boat, however no amount of optimisation will increase the maximum load the boat will carry. Environmental-Microeconomics is concerned only with optimal loading of the boat, and as Daly points out optimally loaded boats sink, they just sink optimally. It is only Environmental-Macroeconomics that looks at the maximum weight the boat can carry. This clearly demonstrates the problem of scale we now face, how do we keep human activity (The Economy) to a scale that is sustainable in regards to how much the ecosystem can take.
However Daly’s metaphor is flawed in that it is possible in that it oversimplifies the relationship between the Economy and the Ecosystem. Giddens’ argues “Nature only becomes a beneficent force once it has been largely subjected to human control; for many who live close to it, nature maybe hostile and feared” (1994:209). Also he argues mastery over nature is not the same as harming it, in fact in some ways ‘mastery’ over nature can be as much about caring for it as destroying it and actually about maintaining harmony (1994:209). We cannot simply reduce the amount we take from the ecosystem or dump into it, indeed even if it were possible without condemning the majority of the world’s population to underdevelopment the political will to do so is non-existent. However this does not make the problem go away and the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem may well not be sustainable in any way.
Perhaps a more valid metaphor for the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem is relationship of endosymbiosis between two animals, with the ecosystem as the host and humans as the symbiote. This relationship can be either mutualistic positive for both, commensal positive for one and neutral for the other or parasitic beneficial for one and negative for the other. Environmental-macroeconomics, the exchange between the ecosystem and the human macroeconomy (1991) is the relationship between the host and symbiote. Lovelock’s Gaia theory provides an interesting insight here, if the ecosystem is harmed by a parasite economy, feedback systems will simply create a hostile environment killing the parasite (2006).
Regardless of how far this metaphor can be developed or alternative ones more appropriate there a problem undeniably exists with the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem.
While there are a number of solutions to this problem that have already been put forward such as ETR, Carbon Trading and endless summits they for the most part do not fully address the problem as they very much approach the problem from the Daly point of view that a simple reduction on the amount of cargo loaded onto the boat will solve the problem.
From here I’m going to go into Norgaar (sic?) on the complexity of local ecosystems and economies and how to simply take less is not an option but instead we need to solve the information problem.
The Moral Need for Sustainable-Research
One worrying thing to consider is that maybe there is no problem in the relationship between the economy and the ecosystem. Maybe the consequences of this relationship will be catastrophic as many scientists think but are acceptable. We currently live in a world with a moral system that allows so much suffering to go on it seems possible a global environmental disaster like climate change could be acceptable to the society we live in if it happened mainly to the right people who already bear the brunt of the hardships of the world. I feel even if this is not the case then society is still in need of a new alternative system of morality.
God is of no importance when it comes to morality and has certainly not been even since there ceased to be any evidence for his hand in creation. This is clear to see if you recognise these 2 points.
1. If we could see god's hand at work in this world giving some indication of what he wanted or did not want from this we could derive Aristotle’s Forth-Cause and build a system of morality around these conclusions. Dawkins and other similar authors have torn this argument apart however. The only place the hand of god can be seen is in the 1986 World Cup quarter-final and can no longer be a source of morality.
2. If god is simply a law giver then his laws are unimportant even if he gives punishment and reward for such things. Imagine if god clearly communicated to us that to wear red on a Tuesday was a sin and we would be sent to hell if we did not wear it and that to wear blue on a Friday was good and we would be sent to heaven if we did. This clearly does not make it wrong to wear red on a Tuesday or right to wear blue on a Friday. God saying something is right should not make it right, indeed a god who’s commands can not be shown to be right or wrong in this world but only in light of his reward or punishment is not worthy of worship or obedience. Even if god has clearly set out his commands in some text to us (which is highly questionable) this alone is not enough build a system of morality on.
So without the option of drawing morality from the natural world or a command giving god where can we find a system of morality? Ultimately like all things morality is a social construction as explained by Berger and Luckmann’s //The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge (1966) and thus relative to the parties that are involved. As such any attempt to find a universal system of morality is impossible especially for the individual who exists in a constantly changing world.
Sustainable research a way of determining morality and success?
However for the institution or formal-role it does not exist in a world that is as fluid as that of the individual. Indeed the world of the institution is much more concrete, and when it deals mainly or even solely with other institutions and individuals in formal-roles its world becomes comparatively much easier to understand than that of the individual.
For example while it is much easier to reach a conclusion to the moral conundrum of weather it is right for someone to intervene when someone is being mugged if that someone is in the formal-role of policeman at the time and not simply just the informal-role of emo music fan. Again it is much easier to decided if it is moral or not for an organisation to explain its funding if organisation is the formal-institution that is running for seats in parliament that year than an informal-institution like Katrina’s pub quiz team.
Already in our society we have set out what the most moral thing for many of our institutions is in the aims and objectives of our government bodies. For example the Policing Pledge (DirectGov 2010) and aims and objectives of the department for work and pensions (Department of work and pensions 2010) give us a clear idea of what we think it is moral for these organisations to do in given circumstances.
However simply because these are the aims and objectives of certain public bodies does not mean that they are the desired aims and objectives of the society within which they function. Often they may be out of step or misunderstood by wider society and shaped by the prejudices of the political elite. By conducting sustainable research in which the opinions of those effected by the policy shaped aims and objectives of such bodies we can see if these aims and objectives are considered moral within society and to what degree. This process can also measure the success of these bodies policies at meeting these objectives as an institution with aims and objectives that our considered sound and moral by the population but whose policies fail to achieve their goals is still not acting morally.
References for this Section
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) // The Social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge// London: Penguin Books
Daly, H. (1991) ‘Elements of Environmental-macroeconomics.’ in Ecological Economics: The science and Management of Sustainability ed. By Costanza, R. New York: Columbia University press 32-46
Department for Work and Pensions (2010) Vision, aims and values [online] available from
DirectGov (2010) The policing pledge [online] available from
Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics Cambridge: Polity Press
Lovelock, J. (2006) The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity London: Allen Lane
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalisation: a critical introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan
Wikipedia (2009) Sustainability [online] available from
Introduction Page
Chapter One Why do we need Sustainable Research
Dictionary of Terms
Thursday, 21 January 2010
chapter 1 finished
ok i've finished chapter 1 (for a given value of finished). I've cut it down to simply why I argue a system of sustainable research is needed and have decided to start a new chapter for what a system of sustainable research will look like. Obv it's going to need alot of tweaking but i'm going to leave it as it is for now and move onto chap 2
Monday, 18 January 2010
Need help on arguments for god as a source of right and wrong
ok so a few updates to chap 1 with relevant dictionary (http://sustainableresearch.wikidot.com/chapter-1)
I really need to do some more on how god can be a source for morality though so any help there would be great. Also my economics is not so hot so if anybody notices any glaring mistakes in my use of the terms or micro and macro would be appriciated.
I really need to do some more on how god can be a source for morality though so any help there would be great. Also my economics is not so hot so if anybody notices any glaring mistakes in my use of the terms or micro and macro would be appriciated.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Dictionary of Terms uploaded
ok so I have uploaded the dictionary of terms http://sustainableresearch.wikidot.com/dictionary-of-terms and added a tiny bit to chapter 1 http://sustainableresearch.wikidot.com/chapter-1. Over the weekend I'm gonna try and nail my ideas on the moral need for sustainable research and the environmental need as well by looking at economic scale. That should be enough to be going on with and hopefully i'll be able to move on from there
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)