BBC Horizon - Global Warming

A lot of the stuff in this blogg is prompted by a sense that we don't take sufficient account of our animal instincts, the effect of our genes, when examining or explaining human baehaviour.

For example. "Horizon" on BBC last Monday night, 24 Jan, wondered why so many people don't accept the scientific consensus that global warming is a real and man-made phenomenen, and what is the role of the media in this.

The main message that I got from the program was how far scientists seem to be disconnected from the reality of human behaviour.

The challenge for scientists is not to convince people that global warming is real. It is to convince people that it is worth a considerable personal cost to do something about it - the sort of cost that they were not prepared to bear, for example, to support the UK textile, coal or car industries or even their local shop.

And when people don't want to do something that they "ought" to do, the usual reaction is to create a justification for their behaviour. In this case they can justify inaction by questioning the science. We can see this all around us. Trades Unions argue that safety will be compromised because it is more acceptable than demanding more pay. Employers claim the need to keep wages down and working hours up to be competitive when they really want an excuse for even more profit.

I'm sure the majority of scientists genuinely believe that global warming will lead to a crisis and believe we should all be helping to do something about it. But surely this expectation flies in the face of experience.

Like every other species humans have always been delighted to rape the planet for their personal betterment without regard for the future. Unfortunately, because humans have intelligence, they are better at it than the other species. If we didn't want everything "now" there would be no basis for the banking industry. We see all around us that people (including, I suspect, the scientists when they are not being scientists) are only interested in buying whatever is cheapest even if it means the loss of UK jobs, the loss of their local shop, or the devastation of other species.

The Horizon program wondered why so many people are unwilling to accept the consensus on global warming even though each of them would be quite happy to accept the medical consensus about how to treat his/her serious illness. I can't understand why the program makers used this example. To my mind it just illustrates the enormous difference between people's attitudes to things that have an immediate impact on their welfare and other things that are distant and intangible.

So HOW can supposedly intelligent scientists expect people to have any interest in paying now to solve a problem that will impact on future generations, probably in far-off places?

As far as I know scientists are not saying that global warming will destroy planet earth or wipe out the human species. Even if the public was convinced that global warming will cause a few wars or famines I suspect most people would be content to believe it will all affect someone else.

And finally ... the program made no attempt to consider whether all this scientific consensus is, as much as anything, driven by the genes of scientists who want secure employment and to have their work admired by their peers - just like ordinary people. This is an unusual subject for scientists. Because of its political implications it is not the same as trying to develop a new type of semi-conductor or a better way to carry out surgery. In "normal" science there is no merit in being on either side of the debate - it is just science. Also "normal" science is usually done with much smaller scientific teams. Anyone pushing a substantially different hypothesis is, in effect, challenging the reputations of a very large group of experts.

Cars Eat Money !

Cars eat money, they really do!

First there is the cost of buying one ... all of the marketing is aimed at getting you to buy one that costs a bit more than you really planned to spend ...

Then its resale value drops ... like a stone ...

And you have to tax and insure it ...

That's all before you actually even get it home.

Well there's not much point having a car and not going anywhere

So you spend money on fuel ...

And parking ...

And there is not much point going anywhere without doing something when you get there

So you buy something that you would not have bothered with if you did not have a car to make it easy to bring home ...

And it was a long trip so you stop at a restaurant and spend ten times what it would have cost to eat better at home ...

All because you have a car

Too much international trade?

The Economist (Jan 15) discusses China buying up Europe and the relative sizes and strengths of the Chinese and European economies.

I understand the general economic idea that importing and exporting can increase economic output compared to a closed economy. But it seems to me that is just a mathematical analysis and it doesn't take account of social issues such as personal welfare, regulation and control.

There seems to be a great danger of losing control to forces (economic or military) beyond the power of our own Governments.

It would be nice if the world were a single large "country" with no "tribal" divisions. But people are not like that, they seem to be most comfortable in groups and with insiders and outsiders. The upper size of these groups is relatively small - even the UK seems to be a bit too large if the wishes of Scotland and Wales to seceed are an indication.

And There are plenty of historical examples of where people have been drawn to commit atrocities on outsiders. It would be unwise to imagine those tendencies have been obliterated, or even diminished.

It would also be nice if everyone was content with his or her proportionate share of wealth or well being. But people are not like that either. Most of what we call progress has been achieved at the behest of individuals who wanted more for themselves - whether to profit from an invention, from the admiration of their scientific peers or simply to get rich from the labour of others.

Because greedy tendencies are such a normal part of human make-up it is essential to be able to regulate - otherwise society will degenerate into anarchy or opression. The recent upheaval in Tunisia is an example.

While it might not make much sense for small countries to erect economic walls (I am a strong supporter of the EU at its present size) I am not sure that there is a net long term benefit from unfettered multi-continental trade. Of course we have all enjoyed the benefit of cheap Asian goods such as computers (including the one I am using to write this) and electric tools. But would we really be worse off in the widest sense if we had not had access to them. What would be wrong with those goods being manufactured in Europe (or in USA for americans)? And would we really be worse off overall if the Chinese did not buy Rolls-Royce cars?

As we embrace multi-continental trade on the grand scale we automatically create even greater opportunities for the greedy to get even richer. And more importantly we lose regulatory control of their activities. They can claim to be operating under more favourable rules elsewhere. They will claim that our rules must be relaxed to compete with other countries. Or they will threaten to take themselves to a more favourable regime. Companies cannot be allowed to become so powerful that they can threaten a State.

The obvious recent example is the banking crisis. We allowed banks to become so big that we could not afford for them to fail. And now the people who caused the problems are again getting Lotto-sized bonuses instead of being left penniless as a punishment for their rash business decisions. And because we have created (or permitted) a multi-continental banking system we are now afraid to set down strict requirements to lend to small businesses or to limit bonuses. If European banking was confined to Europe (or British banking to Britain for the Europhobes) we would could regulate them effecively a tapayers and voters would want. And to argue against this simply because so much international banking is managed in London is, surely, the tail wagging the dog.

To return to China and Europe. At what point does China own so much of Europe that it becomes China? Look how Cadburys seems to be disappearing under the ownership of Kraft.

Introduction

Many of the ways we behave don't seem make a lot of sense.

Hence "Hold on a moment ... lets think a bit more about that".

For example ...

Are we really better off than our ancestors 400 years ago? Yes we have more stuff including shinier hospitals. But better off is not about where we stand on the ladder of technology. Its whether we are content with our lives, or whether we are always worried about tomorrow - stuggling to get more or hoping to escape some disaster. From that point of view I doubt if the human condition has changed in 10 thousand years - and doing our best to consume all the resources of the planet as quickly as possible won't make any difference.

Why does anyone need to have a car costing £50,000 – especially as they consume even more fuel than cars costing a third of the price?

Why do we allow cars with engines more powerful than, say, 35hp If people are really concerned about the environment and road crash deaths and injuries?

Why is it necessary for shares and such to be bought and sold in milliseconds? What interest in or control over a company can you have in such a short time?

Why is it necessary to extract minerals in the Arctic? Why not leave them in case our great great ... grandchildren in 500 years time might have use for them?