Farmer versus Fox

We had our postgrad departmental conference at Cumberland Lodge a few weeks ago. It’s a highlight of the year, based in scenic Windsor Great Park, and offering good cooked meals, huge baths, and table tennis. I co-organized the trip for 2003, where we shook up the format with a series of contentious debates: Is any phenomena truly psychogenic?; Is permission always a prerequisite of involvement in research? [mainly animal ethics]; What bearing does evolutionary theory really have on psychology?; Does science have all the answers?

Oh, the shouting! Oh, the finger-pointing! Oh, the sacrificing of hens on the prince regent’s bed. Love it.

This year the charming Disa and the also-charming David put it together. The topics?

Psychological education – is Psychology a single unified discipline?

What is a psychological law of nature?

Peer-review – the best possible option?

Who sets the scientific agenda?

Good meaty stuff, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I’ll be posting on a few of these – I made a few notes at the time and I’m trying to translate them into a human language. Quaking with anticipation? Oh stop it, you.

Wait – that was sarcasm? Bitch.

At one time bemused at punks being politically active, the big man at Harrys place finds the whole festival thing all a bit too much – especially the notion that liberal, Guardian readers might be there. According to comments, he’d prefer a “smokey basement punk club”; it’s unclear what music preference the politically minded can have without risking a derogatory bashing at some point or other. The reason this is worth bringing up is that from the description I’ve painted here, you might think said blog was right-leaning in question: bash the Guardian, act baffled that punks are anything but a joke minority, etc. But no! This is the new left, formally distinguished from the old by their support of the Iraq war; equally easy to spot by their obsession with criticizing, deriding and generally hating on anyone else who is considered left-wing. – see these two blog topics: Trots (sounds like a trip to the toilet eh? I guess that’s the point) on the bankruptcy of socialism and this on The Left, more of a mixed bag but still largely negative stuff. There is no such topic on the Right, (update – there is one on Anti Fascism but it’s extremely thin – 4 posts, the earliest in May, suggesting an afterthought) which seems surprising for a liberal UK site at a time when we are seeing the rise of the BNP and the emergence of the UKIP. These parties do get a mention, but generally in terms of how they are akin to the ‘extreme left’: they are a handy way to smear and criticize other people you really have a problem with.

It’s a shame because I like the site well enough in several respects – there are not enough UK sites I find readable or relevant (Matt T’s blog is an exception, just added to my blog-roll – deftly written, and the guy can handle statistics in a way that conjures envy in me); I like group blogs, which is why the Coop has fleshed out the flock, at least nominally; and I do think some aspects of what they are focussing on – extremes of the left wing being dogmatic and unreasoning, and potentially harmful – is a good thing. But my god, if you’re the policeman of the left must you model yourself on early 90s LAPD? If the response to left-wing knee-jerks is to jerk right back, nothing is achieved, except a damn good Cossack dance.

One theme that was strutting in these circles for a while that really, really got on my tits was the one about how concerns about attempting global democratisation were basically racism in a woolly jumper. I wrote something about this just before Japan, so it’s a bit late to be posting, but this is still being bandied about – as recently as yesterday, where a program on Radio 4 (the Moral Maze) saw these notions being raised again. So here it is:

It’s amazing how certain camps are prepared to trot out the remarkably flimsy straw man that the anti-war crowd have a distinctly colonial sheen about them, with the suspicion that ‘these sorts of people’ can’t be expected to govern themselves in the same way we can. In one sense, the thing has legs, but the rest is on all back to front.

Among those with misgivings about the current state of Iraq there is genuine concern about the transformation attempted. This is not a distrust of the Arab capacity to find democracy. It’s an awareness of the difficulty of sweeping revolutionary change. It’s something any good progressive-minded person should have cut their teeth on in the progression from naïve idealist to pragmatist with ideals. Looking at major 20th Century sweeping changes to the cultural landscape, you can see that the successful ones were remarkably circumscribed vs the big ones. Leftists can be proud of civil rights, extensions in the franchises, child welfare laws. They should be ashamed of the seizures of total power and attempts to redraw society utterly that has coloured and twisted the notion of progressive action. This should be bread and butter to the self-styled ‘new left’, as they revile the adherence to Marxist principle and starry-eyed idealism seen in the big left-wing institutions of the UK today. If they could turn it in toward themselves, they might recognise that that their zealous commitment to the Iraq project, with all its embroiled ambitions (from domino theories to transforming the entire middle east, to flypaper strategies for transforming the fight against terrorism into a conventional and finite land war) reeks of the same simplification and dogmatic commitment to project.

We all, if we call ourselves left wing, want to change the world for the better (not to imply this is exclusive to the left, but it is a prerequisite of being left-wing). However, not all of us are naïve enough to assume the world is going to skip along with our aspirations. What is being attempted in Iraq is a radical change. Perhaps the prowar left would argue that it is one that will always be radical, and so is wholly necessary. To which the follow-up, and critical step, would be to ascertain whether the proposed plan accounts for the scope of the problem in question. Will there be intricate planning for multiple, complex contingencies? Do we know what the short, mid and long term goals are and have we weighed a cost-benefit analysis? Could we do more good with the same resources elsewhere, or at less risk?

Some people did the job, and they found the proposals wanting. That’s the issue at hand, not Saddam-loving or Arab hating. I hope such claims will die down once people realise their ridiculousness. But I’m not holding my breath.

St George of many colours. I’ve pontificated, or at least pounced on the unwary, about how the good fella ain’t just an English saint, for the red red reason seen below, but check out the good company it holds:

“St George is also patron saint of:

Aragon, agricultural workers, archers, armourers, Boy Scouts, butchers, Canada, Catalonia , cavalry, chivalry, equestrians, farmers, Ferrara Italy, field hands & workers, Genoa Italy, Georgia, Germany, Greece, horsemen, husbandmen, Istanbul, knights, lepers and sufferers of various other skin diseases, Lithuania, Moscow, Order of the Garter, Palestine, Palestinian Christians, plague, Portugal, riders, saddle makers, soldiers, Teutonic Knights, Venice ”

It’s plague that’s really impressing me. Lepers you can get, they need all the patrons they can get, but an epidimiological phenomena? Jordi, I raise my glass to you.

I just did a Google search to try and find a ubiquitous quote about episodic memories. This is what my first search yielded. Read the indicators below the seach window for exactly how little info I got from this. As it says on the sign: doh.

Met Richard Corfield yesterday, an oceanographer and keen promoter of science to the public. He participated in the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts) program of scientific dialogue with the public, Cafe Scientifique, and the discussion was wide and fun; I was quite suprised when it was announced we were out of time, especially as several of the topics were just beginning to run.

Principally, I learnt about HMS Challenger, on a mission undertaken by a science-naval collaboration to chart out more knowledge of the oceans, and additionally collect more evidence to assess Darwin’s thesis of selection which had been published some thirteen years before. The course of their voyage led to wonderful failure: it had been predicted that the bottom of the ocean would be composed purely of ancient throwbacks (the engine of selection was seen to be enviromental change, and the ocean bed was considered a ‘silent landscape’ in which the enviroment was constant, meaning no evolutionary pressure to change); instead, they found countless new species. Then, unexpected success: missing links isolated in the Antipodes which gave support to natural selection. Alongside this, they charted the deepest waters, sparked understanding of the patterns of heat and exchange from the oceans to the continents and much more that couldn’t fit into my groaning head.

I also learned about Methane Hydrate, which becomes frozen in place between water molecules given the right conditions, forming massive deposits on the ocean floor. It’s release from the ocean produced massive warming 55 million years ago, an event which could have been cataclysmic if not for the burgeoning algae who arose to consume the masses of CO2 released. What it did achieve was the change in climate that allowed mammals like us to appear.

Pertinent to now, energy interests are looking at how to tap into this massive energy resource. This is beyond the stage of investigating feasibility – it can be done and the issue is how to do it safely. If Corfield is right, then this is going to happen well within my lifetime and will represent an effectively unlimited energy source. Something I’m going to want to learn more about…

Beyond this, there was an interesting debate about public promotion of science, which is something I’m very into. It seems to be a hot area at the moment; I hope you’ll see me in it one day.

Finally, related to the Lomborg post below, Corfield writes about CO2, Kyoto, and scientific responses to the problem here. Check it out; it’s totally accessible, and he gives props to John Wyndham. Come correct!

ain’t this damn cool.

I’m not sure if it will transform the future of fiction, but it could be just one of many technologies that do just that. Wonder if Scott McCloud has heard of this.

Ahhh fuck. This is what it’s all about:

the Daily Mail-o-matic.

The daily mail has long been the best piece of unintentional (I say that, but I’m beginning to wonder..) comedy out there, and what with the occasional ‘Daily Mail’ island pieces in tvgohome. no more, due to no new content from the site, I was beginning to get antsy. If I can find it, I’ll transcribe my all-time favorite reader’s letter. It is headed with the ominous phrase:

Am I Evil?

I’ll leave you for now to ponder the likely response…

MORE:

I couldn’t leave you without this – the new tvgohome ‘war’ page. For some reason it comes as a jpg not a web page and you may have to zoom, but its well worth it. Fricking genius.

John Quiggin posts on the Copenhagen consensus, a project of Bjorn Lomborg’s to attempt to prioritise the problems developing countries face. Lomborg is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, cautioning the environmental lobby for overstating their case. It came up yesterday in a discussion among intellectual giants, or more accurately a natter over a yard of ale with a bunch of old school mates.

The post is as ever worth a look, but better yet is his essay on Lomborg’s cost-benefit analysis of Kyoto “or something even grander”. It’s here. It’s charges include:

Overestimation of the costs of Kyoto by large factors

His analysis turns out to “reduce the value of costs incurred in 50 years time by a factor of around 10”, from what a standard calculation of the rate of discount would produce.

“Lomborg ignores … completely” the ecological costs of climate change

Reliance on those economic experts who support his view, without consideration to those (numerous) who do not.

and there more…. of course, you needn’t take this at face value either. But let’s all keep informed.

Eldan writes about his dissatisfaction with political writing: by others, and by extension by himself. Read it all, but the key point is:

“even if I could write something eloquent and soundly argued that would really be persuasive to a reader with an open mind—there would be no audience for it, and it feels like a lost cause. All I’m doing by writing about politics is effectively wearing a badge, that will irritate some people and signal to others that I’m part of their tribe, and I can’t be bothered any more. ”

As a consequence he is shutting down active political commentary, while still keeping the door open to writing on political process. He remarks

“I can’t imagine anyone will really miss my rantings here, but if I’m wrong do tell me.”

Consider yourself about to be told. Ahem.

I think it’s clear that any media source you care to pick does indeed reduce into an echo chamber of some or other set of dimensions. The dailies do it, the distinguished periodicals do it, the blog-continents excel in it. Hell, the man on the street does it too. No-one is objective, and not enough strive to be. Nowadays it’s accentuated in my eyes due to the number of outlets mushrooming, through cable channels but particularly the internet, where thousands of voices professing to be honest, uncoloured and free from the stain of editorial slant reveal unashamed, jaw-dropping bias. It was easier before when I could just blame the owners of big bad media. No such luck. It’s easier now just to turn sideways and let it slide past.

Yet every person able to well-express themselves, and truly willing in their attempt to eschew reflexivity in favour of a balanced and critical appraisal, is a good voice amongst the sorry chaff. In my opinion Eldan is one of these voices; if not, he’s certainly getting there. For me, the problem is another that he specifies: when I attempt to condense my thoughts into precise words I can too easily become mawkish and winding, often at the same time. I imagine it’s akin to a hierarchy of needs – once I can express myself better I will begin to have issues with whether my expression is actually useful. I think that give or take, he has got to this second stage; and reasonably enough, he is taking on the issue: is there any point if no-one shifts opinion due to what they hear?

Firstly I will take on that assumption. While it’s true that most columnists, bloggers and other vendors of opinions are pretty much entrenched (and bear in mind that there are exceptions; even the devout can become the laity, and vice versa), I think there are many people whose opinions, on a variety of issues, are not set in stone. The rather faceless ‘man on the street’ I introduced earlier (lets face it, he was basically a straw man on the street, wasn’t he?) is really a multitude, and within that you’d find plenty genuinely interested in what other people think about x, y and the proverbial z.

Also, there are certain issues which don’t necessitate a set reaction from each political persuasion, but can elicit diverse responses.

Secondly, even if no-one were to shift, self-expression clearly has an intrinsic value, and I’d argue that political self-expression is particularly valuable. We should entertain and share our opinions on aesthetics (I liked this film, I hated that book) and our immediate social environment; fortunately, most of us do. Politics is easier to duck (one of the dinner table taboos) in our day to day communication, but due to its complexity and importance it is an area where we need to devote resources if we are ever to become rounded, and avoid becoming echo-chambers ourselves. I spend too much time watching public figures I dislike mouth off, and growling inwardly: “Idiot! You’re wrong, and I’m right.” It’s when I actually have to cash out the cheques, and express myself in some way, that I find where my own biases lie, and revise my own opinions accordingly.

Following from this, I would add that a properly functioning democracy should rely on its citizenship being aware and articulate. As a consequence, one could see, if so inclined that expressing oneself politically, even to no-one in particular, is a responsibility we can be proud to carry out.

It should be clear that while the impetus of this post was the decision by Eldan, that its equally about myself and my personal notions about why this is worth doing; it’s also about you, you whover reads this. So for the next paragraph, take Eldan and referents to such as a term denoting Eldan, me, and yes, you.

I’d like to see Eldan continue talking about politics. I certainly don’t think he should feel obliged to, or feel that political events should ever dictate a response (I don’t think his silence on an issue is likely to be harmful), but if he feels like articulating where he stands on any issue, then that’s enough to shoot on and do it. The argument above asserts it’s good for Eldan (cohering his value system) and good for society (leading from the first point).

On a personal note, Eldan, it’s certainly good for me. I’m also wandering the same broad ballpark that you’re in, maybe in the bleechers whilst you’re in the dugout (excuse the terrible American sporting analogy but seeing as Eldan is in the States ‘jumpers for goalposts’ is not legit), but thereabouts, with an interest in the world, hope that it will be better, untied to ideology but interested in ideas. Hell, I’m curious about how you are wending your way from a to b, and if there are any tigers there. Eldan, I’d love to be discussing this over a beer with you, but distances make that a tall order. What? No, not you! You expired from the terminology a paragraph ago. Haven’t you been listening at all? And why the hell would I be addressing myself? Jesus!

I am totally going to Namibia.

rawwwr.