Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Things based on speculation, informed and otherwise [Oct. 10th, 2009|10:01 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , ]

Since several of you are also Walter Jon Williams fans, and several of you are also fascinated by economics, and several of you are into gaming of one sort or another, and more than half of you are probably interested in near-future science fiction that puts all of these together with the collapse of civilization in Indonesia following a currency devaluation, I am going to point you to a review of Walter Jon Williams new novel This Is Not A Game here:

http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=57525

Sounds good.

Speaking of things done on spec, some of you have written me asking what I thought of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Award. I have even written to one of you asking what one of you thought of said award.

I will say one or more of the following things might have happened, or might yet happen, or might be my actual reaction, or might have been my actual reaction, or possibly not:

Scenario A: Spontaneous orgasm.

Scenario B: Spontaneous ejaculation of fluids, except rather than orgasmically it was great gouts of clotted blood bursting out of my mouth in continuous heaves, followed by further ejaculation of all my internal organs, and finally even some muscle, bone and flesh, after which I lay somehow not-dead until some strange people who live underground turned me into a raven, whereupon I picked up a pearl in my beak and carried it through various places and across the sleeping giant before dropping it into the outer darkness.*

Scenario C: Have you ever felt like that officer in Forest Gump who loses his legs and goes on to watch the mentally challenged private who needs lots of extra guidance to get from point A to point B without accidentally killing himself become super rich and famous? Except at least Forest was genuinely good-hearted and well-intentioned and saved some lives in heroic fashion.

Imagine now that Forest was a scheming climber who stabbed people in the back left right and center on his path to becoming the most beloved president since FDR for doing nothing but continuing most of the policies of the most hated-by-the-world president in history and supervising the continuing transformation of the US into a third world economy, Imagine all this was cheered on by lots of intelligent people who share the same part of the political spectrum as you do and admit many of his failings but still feel the need to proclaim their love for his wonderfulness. And then imagine the dude gets the Nobel Peace Prize while continuing to try to keep innocent people in prison knowing that they are innocent, complete with trying to introduce tortured confessions into court that you know are false, and then watch as many intelligent people who share your part of the political spectrum proceed to claim everything from "he's done plenty!" to "he deserves it for his noble words!" to "other people have gotten it for treaties and fighting for causes that failed after a while, so it makes perfect sense to give it to him!" Then think about what you'd feel like.

******

*points and prizes to whoever gets this reference; tho it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything, it just came to mind

*******

eta: I've seen a number of people compare this. to Al Gore's getting the Nobel Peace Prize. I think Al deserved it. Al is, and for decades has been trying to stop this: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/be-afraid-be-very-afraid.html (money quote: "What we have shown is that in the last period when CO2 levels were sustained at levels close to where they are today, there was no icecap on Antarctica and sea levels were 25-40m higher," said research leader Aradhna Tripati from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)." That's meters. That's enough to drown a 10-story building. That's enough to make several billion people move to higher ground or die. Or both. It won't be pleasant for the people they move in on either..

And until recently getting nothing but ridicule or people ignoring him for his effforts. He's been the single most public voice of this debate, and he was there first. Give him prize.

Of course, while paying attention and occasionally clapping, people still don't seem really aware of the problem. Or, to quote again from Quixote's awesome, must-be-read post:

So, there you have it. The last time greenhouse gases were this high, there wasn't a 2% chance of melting ice sheets. There was a 100% chance.

Does that mean it will happen again? We'll probably see. Because the answer to, "Do you want to risk the whole planet to find out?" appears to be "Yes."
link24 comments|post comment

State of the world . . . from energy to eating to how climate change is a good thing for some . . [Apr. 9th, 2008|02:26 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ]

The following article, "The Next President's First Task (A Manifesto)", is well worth reading.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/rfk_manifesto200805

Key quotes:

We know that nations that “decarbonize” their economies reap immediate rewards. Sweden announced in 2006 the phaseout of all fossil fuels (and nuclear energy) by 2020. In 1991 the Swedes enacted a carbon tax—now up to $150 a ton—and as a result thousands of entrepreneurs rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from wind, the sun, and the tides, and from woodchips, agricultural waste, and garbage. Growth rates climbed to upwards of three times those of the U.S.

Iceland was 80 percent dependent on imported coal and oil in the 1970s and was among the poorest economies in Europe. Today, Iceland is 100 percent energy-independent, with 90 percent of the nation’s homes heated by geothermal and its remaining electrical needs met by hydro. The International Monetary Fund now ranks Iceland the fourth most affluent nation on earth. The country, which previously had to beg for corporate investment, now has companies lined up to relocate there to take advantage of its low-cost clean energy.


and

As for solar, according to a study in Scientific American, photovoltaic and solar-thermal installations across just 19 percent of the most barren desert land in the Southwest could supply nearly all of our nation’s electricity needs without any rooftop installation, even assuming every American owned a plug-in hybrid.

These sorts of facts are why I'm convinced most resistance to alternative energy is based on things other than the usually stated economic reasons; there are no good economic reasons for the country as a whole not to have already invested more than we have in alternate energy sources; and no good reasons not to start now. It's also why I think the people advocating nuclear are mostly either unwitting dupes or people who are purely motivated by large company profits -- nuclear, like fossil fuels, allows for great consolidation and control in the hands of a few mega-corporations. Solar doesn't *need* to be decentralized, but I already know people who have 100% solar and/or wind powered residences, even w/existing technologies; while I doubt that will ever be the norm, the technology ultimately allows individual people and companies/buildings a lot more autonomy, thus providing sort of a long term threat to corporate energy control.

Other alternative energy sources? Not so sure what the resistance from the current energy giants is to some of them, but I think it may be similar to the factors behind seemingly irrational prejudice in the US auto industry against everything from installing seatbelts to developing/providing more fuel efficient cars . . . (I say seemingly irrational, but it's both actually irrational and sort of logical depending on how you look it; everything from diverse divestment portfolios to the issues raised in a paper a friend of mine wrote back in law school about how transactions costs can, for some people at least, include such things as having to overcome personal prejudices) Or I could just be over-cynical . . .

I thought this was especially timely in light of this post from Turkana, mentioning that global warming had been "grossly underestimated" and that even the EU --who are vastly ahead of the US in this area -- needed to greatly modify their targets.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012295.php
& this ditty about how global warming is good for something, after all . . .
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012302.php

And for those who, like me, have felt the increased food prices at the grocery store, and/or have followed the news about hording and penalties for hording rice in various countries around the world, Krugman's explanation is the best combination of comprehensive and easy-to-follow that I've yet seen . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(hat-tip to The Sideshow for this one)
(some of these have been around and I've been meaning to post about them for a few days; apologies if you've all already read them)(the Vanity Fair green issue the rfk essay comes from has several good things in it)
linkpost comment

Books, non-fiction best reads in 2007 [Jan. 27th, 2008|10:14 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

Because I absolutely *must* do this before the end of January, or it will have to get skipped . . .

In brief, the criteria-- I read the book all the way through in 2007 (or was at least close to the finish by new year's), no-rereads, publication date irrelevant, and am convinced I like it enough to recommend really highly.

As with last year, a shorter non-fic than fic list, both because I read fewer non-fic books (I read just as much nonfiction, if not more, but newspapers and blogs and magazines were a huge part of that; as long as I'm dong a best-of, my favorite magazine column of 2007 was Katha Pollitt in The Nation; my favorite blog was The Sideshow, both for political commentary and because it is the best place for links to other interesting blogs/commentary, and whilst I could have fun doing a top 10-list here w/everyone from Glenn Greenwald to Echidne of the Snakes, I suspect the number of people actually reading *my* blog might drop to flat zero if I did that), and because, for some bizarre reason, they just don't stick in my mind as well.

I can't for sure remember the December/January reading time of Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal," so while it is good enough to make the short list and I recommend it highly, it's going on next year's.

Anyway, here goes . . .

1. Evolving God by Barbara J King. Beautifully written book about notions of spirituality in general and the whole concept of god evolved, with the theory that it has its roots in the same part of our brains & thought processes that produces empathy, to oversimplify a lot. Also contains a lot about empathy and social interaction among non-human animals, espeically apes, and a lot about differing concepts of spirituality and deity. One of the rare books on religion that should manage to appeal to everyone from the more traditional theists to to the atheists on my f-list, and also anyone who's an animal lover. It isn't specifically making an appeal for animals rights or better treatment of animals for their own sakes, as opposed to just because preserving biodiversity is good for humans, but I can't see how anyone reading this book could NOT think of that. (if someone who is turned off by the notion of animal rights is on my friends list, this shouldn't turn you off the book, necessarily, that's my interpretation and not the point of the book)

2. Helen Caldicott's Why Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer -- not the best written of the books, but given the increasing number of people, most troubling the increasing number of people on the left, who want an immediate massive investment in nuclear power and think it is the only way to save us from globabl warming, I think this is the most *important* book that came out last year, or at least it would be if it had gotten lots of attention. Alas, books & articles promoting nuclear, which already has a lot of money invested in it, get much the bigger promotion than books explaining in a lot more detail why it isn't even a particularly good short term solution--grossly expensive and beyond risky. In the same vein, the Utne reader had nice piece on this subject in their most recent issue, and Scientific American has a cover story on how solar could be supplying all our energy needs by the end of the century, even without new technology (which one would presume will come about, since solar has yet to see really big time investment, alas that Carter lost in '80; we'd probably already be mostly solar and minimally fossil fuel if he had won reelection). My original review w/discussion of a book that took the totally opposite point of view is here: http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/30198.html#cutid1


3. Terry Glavin, The Sixth Extinction: Journeys Among The Lost and Left
Behind.
Wow. In a lot of ways, the best written and most fun to read non-fiction book I've ever read. Docked a couple of spots because the author annoys me a few times with his dismissive views towards animal intelligence and those who think whales are up there on a level with humans (complete w/pointless shots at Carl Sagan), but other than that you could certainly make a strong case for this being far and away the best book of the year, fic or non-fic. I went on about this at great length in two separate places earlier this year, which I will link to, but first a quick summary from one of those: A beautifully written,
lyrical book, as can be gleaned from from chapter titles such as "Valley of the Black Pig", "The Singing Tree of Chungliyimti", and "The Last Giants in the River of the Black Dragon".
Most of the first half of the book is concerned with the lost of wild land
and species. The second half is mostly concerned with the loss of human
cultures, languages and domestic plants/food crops. One may be dismayed to learn of "patent-protected 'terminator' seeds that produce plants that kill their own seeds or refuse to grow at all unless sprayed with one of the company's herbicides." One may find
oneself agreeing with Richard Manning that the great agribusiness
revolution of the 1960's is "the worst thing that has ever happened on the
planet",that solved (some) local problems only by exchanging them for
unprecedented, global-scale problems."

Despite the author's optimistic view, by the time I got to the finish, I
saw it more as an ode to things passing away than as an optimistic work
showing how humanity is working to save things. Yes, many humans are. More
are working to enrich themselves however possible, and those w/the most
power and least actual need to enrich themselves are doing this in the
worst possible way.

http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/30198.html#cutid1 (for review # 1, before I'd finished, concerned w/writing style as much as anything else)
http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/32485.html#cutid1 (once I'd finished, w/lots more detail, esp about the latter parts of the book)


Those three were way ahead of everything else, but also making my top 5:

4. Deep Economy, by Bill McKibben (edited from original review) Points out how traditional economics as taught and practiced in most places these days fails to account for all sorts of social and environmental costs, and towards a sort of economics that does these things. Also does a nice job of illustrating that there are all sorts of environmental damage beyoned global warming or even pollution and habitat destruction -- northern China as an example of the kind of catastrophe the whole world is going to face from diminishing water sources unless we get more responsible about our usage of this, amongst other things. And takes apart a lot of big agriculture propaganda against smaller or more localized farming.

I confess, some stuff in the book kinda rubbed me the wrong way -- while I
certainly agree we have a responsibility for each other, the emphasis on
community was a little too much for my anti-social taste, & I nearly quit reading when he said "the rest of this book is devoted to the economics of
neighborliness" (don't stop there, btw, the rest of the book is actually
really good); didn't care for his overall excessive cheeriness or his
repeated mentions of being a Sunday school teacher or his being way, way
way too kind in his evaluation of all sorts of people and arguments, but
then, this may be exactly the kind of person/book/argumentation most
likely to reach those people who still resist more
environmentally/socially friendly ways of life.


5. Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali A really gripping if sometimes problematic memoir. Don't always agree with her politics or her analysis, but nonetheless an extremely worthwhile read. For a longer take, http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/33707.html

For what it's worth, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" would have made the list in the #4 spot, except I've heard people cast doubts as to its authenticity, and I haven't had time to check it out. Certainly, most of it rang true to me, but there was one point in particular where I wondered about embellishment, so holding off on ranking/reccing it for right now.

Fiction reviews (that will probably be a top 20, because I'm indecisive about narrowing things down) will hopefully finally show up tomorrow or Tuesday.
link5 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement