As I have studied and listened to hysterics and skepticism over the climate change debate, I've realized that the debate boils down mostly to, "Uh, huh!," "Nu, uhh!" On one side, they are crying that the sky is falling and it's man's fault. On the other side, their saying either it's not falling or that it's not man's fault. My one critique of the debate is this: if the sky is falling, is it really going to be all that bad?
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Pledge of Allegiance
I recently wrote a post on the Pledge of Allegiance on my blog. This has been something that Camille and I have been thinking and talking about for a while, and I wanted to put it out there for people to see. http://thoughts-by-tom.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-saying-pledge-of-allegiance.html
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Fun in Social Psychology
My professor of this class is a Democrat, which is neither here nor there. Today we talked about aggression. He started out his lecture by talking about guns. I'll preface my writings by saying that I think both sides of the gun control debate are a little overly simplistic. Are there a lot of guns that are misused in the US? Absolutely. Are there unnecessary deaths? Absolutely. Has there been some success with gun control in other countries? Yes, but there have been warnings for us, too. On the other hand, are there countries that have widespread gun ownership and extremely low levels of gun crime? Absolutely! Norway and Switzerland have among the lowest crime rates (of any kind) in the world.
Lessons can be learned from these two examples of gun ownership. One thing, first of all, must be understood: a gun is a tool and it can't kill people. People kill people. A gun is inanimate and can do nothing by itself. They understand that very well in these two countries. Switzerland has mandatory military service for all men, and therefore has a very well-trained population. If I were a criminal, I would be most worried about those with guns than those without. Additionally, I would be very deterred from committing a crime if the likelihood of the other person having a gun was great, especially if they know how to use it.
The second amendment isn't going away. We are going to have guns. I propose mandatory training on firearms. In many places we have mandatory sex ed., the purpose being to limit unsafe sex. Why in the world don't we try to limit unsafe gun use and ownership when far more people die from misuse of guns than from misuse of sex? I'm just saying.
Lessons can be learned from these two examples of gun ownership. One thing, first of all, must be understood: a gun is a tool and it can't kill people. People kill people. A gun is inanimate and can do nothing by itself. They understand that very well in these two countries. Switzerland has mandatory military service for all men, and therefore has a very well-trained population. If I were a criminal, I would be most worried about those with guns than those without. Additionally, I would be very deterred from committing a crime if the likelihood of the other person having a gun was great, especially if they know how to use it.
The second amendment isn't going away. We are going to have guns. I propose mandatory training on firearms. In many places we have mandatory sex ed., the purpose being to limit unsafe sex. Why in the world don't we try to limit unsafe gun use and ownership when far more people die from misuse of guns than from misuse of sex? I'm just saying.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Socialism
It never ceases to amaze me how many members of the Church embrace whole-heartedly socialist programs. They always cite quotes by Christ, King Benjamin, and prophets of the Church who call for more equality and generosity. They also cite the United Order and consecration as examples in which the Church advocates redistribution of wealth. There are two problems with drawing a comparison between socialism in its Marxist form and consecration: agency and stewardship.
From the very beginning, there has been a battle between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan. Christ's plan all along was to allow people to choose whether or not they would follow Him. Satan's plan was to force everyone to do what is right. God knew that there was nothing exalting in being forced to do good, and that no one would learn and grow through coercion. Socialism is just that, though. It is good to give to those who are in need. It is just as damning, however, to be forced to give to the poor as it is to retain your excess. It is also unjustifiable to take from one individual to give to another individual without the consent of that person. Consecration, on the other hand, is based on agency. People have the choice to give freely and receive the blessings or to retain their wealth and not receive the Spirit.
There is also the matter of stewardship. In consecration and the United Order, every person gave all of there substance to the Bishop's storehouse, and then they were given what they needed for themselves and their families. Most of the time, they received much of their own possessions back (including home and land) in the form of a stewardship. They were responsible and accountable for the use of these things. Under socialism, however, there is no such accountability or stewardship. Indeed, under its most extreme form (communism) everything is owned "commonly," meaning the government oligarchy owns everything, and there is no accountability or sense of responsibility on the part of any of the people. Under common forms of socialism, stewardships are given out (usually in the form of money) with no commitment or accountability expected. It's not hard to see how this is contrary to the way of the gospel. Indeed, many general authorities over the years have condemned the idea of a dole welfare system (giving out money).
For those who earn more than they need, it is good for them to give to the poor. For those who need help, they should do all they can on their own, then approach their families, then their church, and last of all their government. Socialist governments try to flip that on its head and get people to depend on it rather than help themselves or each other. There is nothing exalting in having all of your needs automatically provided for without having to learn and grow, and there is nothing exalting about not helping your neighbor or family member directly. Government socialism takes the choice and the charity out of it.
From the very beginning, there has been a battle between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan. Christ's plan all along was to allow people to choose whether or not they would follow Him. Satan's plan was to force everyone to do what is right. God knew that there was nothing exalting in being forced to do good, and that no one would learn and grow through coercion. Socialism is just that, though. It is good to give to those who are in need. It is just as damning, however, to be forced to give to the poor as it is to retain your excess. It is also unjustifiable to take from one individual to give to another individual without the consent of that person. Consecration, on the other hand, is based on agency. People have the choice to give freely and receive the blessings or to retain their wealth and not receive the Spirit.
There is also the matter of stewardship. In consecration and the United Order, every person gave all of there substance to the Bishop's storehouse, and then they were given what they needed for themselves and their families. Most of the time, they received much of their own possessions back (including home and land) in the form of a stewardship. They were responsible and accountable for the use of these things. Under socialism, however, there is no such accountability or stewardship. Indeed, under its most extreme form (communism) everything is owned "commonly," meaning the government oligarchy owns everything, and there is no accountability or sense of responsibility on the part of any of the people. Under common forms of socialism, stewardships are given out (usually in the form of money) with no commitment or accountability expected. It's not hard to see how this is contrary to the way of the gospel. Indeed, many general authorities over the years have condemned the idea of a dole welfare system (giving out money).
For those who earn more than they need, it is good for them to give to the poor. For those who need help, they should do all they can on their own, then approach their families, then their church, and last of all their government. Socialist governments try to flip that on its head and get people to depend on it rather than help themselves or each other. There is nothing exalting in having all of your needs automatically provided for without having to learn and grow, and there is nothing exalting about not helping your neighbor or family member directly. Government socialism takes the choice and the charity out of it.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Racism
Friday and today, in my social psychology class, we talked about the prominence of racism in modern US society. While agree that it is still present and that it is horrible, I think that there is more to it than the color of your skin.
For instance, the argument was continually made by my professor that Obama is not doing as well as he should be, considering who the current president is, because of his race. I admit that there must be something to this. There are racists and bigots around. I think, though, that the fact that he is the most liberal and least experienced candidate for president in our nations history has something to do with it. It doesn't help that he has so many shady relationships (Ayers, Wright, Resco, etc). His policies sound great, unless you're a thinking American who sees through the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
Also, there is more to do with your home lifestyle than your skin color when it comes to determining how successful you'll be in later life. White kids living in the "hood" are just as likely to get killed on the streets, become a teen parent, and never rise out of poverty as any other ethnicity living in the same circumstances, I would argue. Granted, there is a greater percentage of white people who live in "priviledged" homes, but that has more to do with historic racism and discrimination than current racism. Might I remind everyone that Irish and Poles were discriminated against vociferously 100 years ago?
For instance, the argument was continually made by my professor that Obama is not doing as well as he should be, considering who the current president is, because of his race. I admit that there must be something to this. There are racists and bigots around. I think, though, that the fact that he is the most liberal and least experienced candidate for president in our nations history has something to do with it. It doesn't help that he has so many shady relationships (Ayers, Wright, Resco, etc). His policies sound great, unless you're a thinking American who sees through the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
Also, there is more to do with your home lifestyle than your skin color when it comes to determining how successful you'll be in later life. White kids living in the "hood" are just as likely to get killed on the streets, become a teen parent, and never rise out of poverty as any other ethnicity living in the same circumstances, I would argue. Granted, there is a greater percentage of white people who live in "priviledged" homes, but that has more to do with historic racism and discrimination than current racism. Might I remind everyone that Irish and Poles were discriminated against vociferously 100 years ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)