POSTS
This is an invitation to contribute to a discussion (by writing comments) about the theoretical foundations of ecology and economics on my knols:
“Free Trade and Free Markets, Ecology and Economics”
http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/free-markets-and-free-trade-ecology-and/xk923bc3gp4/25#
and
“A Limit to Globalization? Fuzzy Chaos Modelling in Ecology and Economics”
http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/a-limit-to-globalization-fuzzy-chaos/xk923bc3gp4/28#
A new paper has just come out:
Rohde, K. and Rohde, P.P. (2008). How to measure ecological host specificity. Vie et Milieu-Life and Environment 58 (2), 121-124.
It deals with the following problem: most parasites infect more than one host species, nectar feeding birds, as well as bees and other insects, usually visit more than one plant species, etc. Nevertheless, they often have preferences for particular “host” species. How do we measure this? Obviously, just counting the host species is unsatisfactory, because this would ignore such preferences. Our index considers not just the number of hosts, but the intensity and frequency of their use as well.
I read again in a book published almost 70 years ago (“I Believe. Nineteen Personal Philosophies”, Unwin Press, London 1940). It contains, among others, a brief (five page) contribution by Albert Einstein. It is worth quoting from it:
“I do not believe we can have any freedom at all in the philosophical sense, for we act not only under external compulsion but also by inner necessity. Schopenhauer’s saying – “A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine what he wills” – impressed itself upon me in youth and has always consoled me when I have witnessed or suffered life’s hardships. This conviction is a perpetual breeder of tolerance, for it does not allow us to take ourselves or others too seriously; it makes rather for a sense of humour.
To ponder interminably over the reason for one’s own existence or the meaning of life in general seems to me, from an objective point of view, to be sheer folly. And yet everyone holds certain ideals by which he guides his aspiration and his judgment. The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beauty, and truth. To make a goal of comfort or happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this basis would be sufficient only for a herd of cattle.”
………..
“This subject brings me to that vilest offspring of the herd mind – the odious militia. The man who enjoys marching in line and file to the strains of music falls below my contempt; he received his great brain by mistake – the spinal cord would have been amply sufficient. ……. War is low and despicable, and I rather be smitten to shreds than participate in such doings.
Such a stain on humanity should be erased without delay. I think well enough of human nature to believe that it would have been wiped out long ago had not the common sense of nations been systematically corrupted through school and press for business and political reasons.”
In a previous post I drew attention to the difficulties in attributing blame for the outbreak of the war between Russia and Georgia. Western media, generally, blamed Russia. Here is the latest about the Russia-Georgia war from the New York Times.
Full account here.
Excerpt:
“Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression. Georgia moved forces toward the border of the breakaway region of South Ossetia on Aug. 7, at the start of what it called a defensive war with separatists there and with Russian forces.
Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.”
Interestingly, in my first post I had two BBC links, one of them on the effects of the Georgian attack on civilians in South Ossetia. Apparently, the report was taken off the BBC website very soon (the very same day I read it) after it had first been published. At least I could not link into it after my first successful attempt. Another example of media bias, or a technical hitch?
Wilhelm Busch: Über Dummheit. Ausgewählt aus der Zitate-Sammlung im Projekt Gutenberg, der Spiegel:
“Dummheit, die man bei den anderen sieht,
Wirkt meist erhebend aufs Gemüt.”
“Wenn andere klüger sind als wir,
Das macht uns selten nur Pläsier,
Doch die Gewissheit, das sie dümmer,
Erfreut fast immer.”
Zeichnung “Von hinten” von Klaus Rohde.
Here are some excerpts from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian, 21.10.08. Full text here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-christianity-palin
“God bother in Wasilla. The resurgence of religion now marks the widest divide between US and European politics.”
“John McCain has tried to negatively associate Barack Obama with Jeremiah Wright, his fire-eating radical pastor (or former pastor), but much less attention has been paid to Sarah Palin’s membership of the Assembly Church of God in Wasilla and to her own pastor, Ed Kalnins”
…
“According to Kalnins, the Jewish people must be gathered into the Land of Israel as a preliminary to Armageddon. When that vast conflict comes the Jews will be converted, or possibly annihilated, and it will be followed by the Rapture.
Already Kalnins sees “the storm clouds are gathering” through conflict in the Middle East: “Scripture specifically mentions oil instability as a sign of the Rapture. We’re seeing more and more oil wars. The contractions of the fulfilment of prophecies are getting tighter and tighter.” And he hopes to witness the Rapture soon. “I’m just looking at the turmoil of the world, Iraq, other places – everywhere people are fighting against Christ,” he says. Since Palin is one of his flock, she presumably believes this too. She certainly believes that Jesus told us to invade Iraq: she said so from the pulpit.”
…
“Not long ago John McCain was obliged to disown John Hagee, a Texan preacher with a huge following who is not only militantly hostile to Catholicism and Islam but believes that “Hitler was a hunter” who had been sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel. ”
Sarah Palin as President?
Sarah Palin as Vice-President to a belligerent Commander-in Chief?
God help us.
Richard Dawkins may have a case, after all.
The autobiography of Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve (The Age of Turbulence, 2007) reads like a bible of free market fundamentalism or neoliberal economics (as little government interference as possible, markets can regulate themselves !). There is frequent reference to Adam Smith’s wisdom. According to press reports and TV interviews, Greenspan has now changed his mind. He admits that he was wrong in bis belief that banks could regulate themselves.
See also:
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/10/09/debunking-economics-steve-keen/
and my knol article
http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/free-markets-and-free-trade-ecology-and/xk923bc3gp4/25#
Nevertheless, I cannot suppress a feeling of admiration for somebody who’s entire life’s work was based on a deeply ingrained belief which he has now, at the age of over 80, thrown overboard. Let’s hope that many others, far younger, will follow him. – On the other hand, what else could he have done? The evidence against the holy grail of free market fundamentalism is fairly strong.
Here are two excerpts of a report in the Huffington Post:
“The deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe is starting again — and you are almost certainly carrying a blood-soaked chunk of the slaughter in your pocket. When we glance at the holocaust in the Congo, with 5.4 million dead, the clichés of Africa reporting tumble out: this is a “tribal conflict” in “the Heart of Darkness.” It isn’t. The United Nations investigation found it was a war led by “armies of business” to seize the metals that make our twenty-first century society zing and bling. The war in Congo is a war about you.”
“These resources were not being stolen to be used in Africa. They were being seized so they could be sold on to us. The more we bought, the more the invaders stole — and slaughtered. The rise of mobile phones caused a surge in deaths, because the coltan they contain is found primarily in Congo.”
Full text here.
According to various press reports, the private arm of the World Bank has decided to support a company with a multi-million Dollar loan for extending its cattle ranches in parts of the Amazon in which illegal deforestation has occurred in the past. Is this the function of the World Bank ? Why not give the money to poor African farmers for improving their farming practices?
In the Congo and the Amazon, environmental destruction on a grand scale! This concerns us all: experts have estimated that damage to the environment will have far greater economic consequences than the present financial crisis.
In a recent post and knol article I critically discussed the principles of the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of economy based on free trade and free markets, including Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. Now, Professor Krugman of Princeton University has received the Nobel prize for his insights into trade patterns between countries, showing that the principle of comparative advantage does not realistically explain trade patterns.
Below are excerpts from a New York Times article about him. Full article here.
“Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange only the kinds of goods that they are comparatively better at producing “…
This model, however, dating from David Ricardo’s writings of the early 19th century, was not reflected in the flow of goods and services that Mr. Krugman saw in the world around him. He set out to explain why worldwide trade was dominated by a few countries that were similar to one another, and why a country might import the same kinds of goods it exported.
Krugman saw that “many companies sell similar goods with slight variations. These companies become more efficient at producing their goods as they sell more, and so they grow. ”
He also examined the effects of transportation costs, explaining “under what conditions trade would lead people or companies to move to a particular region or to move away.”
Professor Krugman is also well known for his New York Times articles criticizing G.W.Bush’s policy and neoliberalism.
Der Spiegel 11.2.08. Abschied vom Beton-Brecht (Farewell to Concrete-Brecht)
Neues aus Brechts Notizbüchern. (Something new from Brecht’s note books) (My translations)
Wisse auch, dass etwas nicht glauben, doch etwas glauben heisst.
You should know that not to believe something, also means to believe something.
Immer noch, wie im Pawlowschen Versuch, veranlassen Glocken in mir Prozesse sicherlich chemischer Art, Gedanken metaphysischer Richtung.
Even now, as in Pavlov’s experiments, bells induce processes in me, certainly of a chemical nature, thoughts of a metaphysical nature.
In der Welt, die ich mir wünsche, komme ich nicht vor.
In the world which I like that should exist, I do not occur.
Was ich nicht gern gesteh: gerade ich verachte solche, die im Unglück sind.
I do not admit this easily: Just I despise those who are unfortunate.
Der Mensch ist kein Schwimmer, der Mensch ist kein Flieger: Er ist aus der Gattung der Rückenlieger.
Man is not a swimmer, he is not a flyer, he is of the genus of backlyers (people lying on their backs).
Ich hätte mein Versprechen gern gehalten. Aber ich konnte nicht/Warum?/Ich hatte keine Lust.
I would have liked to keep my promise. But I could not/Why?/I did not feel like it.
Wie lange dauern die Werke? So lange bis sie fertig sind.
How long do works last? Until they are completed.
Some of my earlier posts have cast doubt on the validity of free market fundamentalism: don’t worry, leave it to the market it will sort itself out! The fewer restrictions, the better! Any external interference with markets is harmful!
But are free markets (as practised in today’s capitalist world) really a universal and universally accepted mechanism driving economic progress?
Medieval Christian ethics did not accept usury, which is the basic tool of capitalism. Max Weber, in a famous essay, traced the origin of capitalism back to the Protestant ethic, especially its Calvinist (Pietist) variety. Islam still does not accept usury. So, how does the Islamic approach to finance do in the modern world?
Loretta Napoleoni: Rogue Economics. Capitalism’s New Reality. Allen&Unwin 2008 discusses the essentials of the Islamic banking system, which is based on sharia law and best developed in Malaysia. Its essentials are prohibition of any kind of ‘speculation’ and of interest charges. ‘Immoral’ investments such as in casinos are also forbidden. Islamic banks have to make a profit. They do this by buying assets on behalf of the customer, who has to repay the ‘loan’ and a fee for using the asset. When the ‘loan’ is paid off, the asset’s ownership is transferred to the borrower. The advantage of this arrangement is that the bank shares not only the profit but the risk as well. For that reason, it will also have a very close look at the potential borrowers. For example, take as an example the case of a person or persons who want to buy a factory. They approach an Islamic bank which, after a thorough personal check, agrees to support the purchase. It buys the factory on behalf of the customer(s). Since it bears part of the risk, it has to make sure that this risk is not excessive. In toto, partnership (sharing risk and profit) and avoidance of excessively risky investments are characteristic of Islamic banking.
Napoleoni discusses the Asian financial crisis of the nineties. Several countries (Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines) decided to accept financial support from the IMF and its restrictive conditions, which resulted in a worsening of the crisis. Malaysia, blaming international speculators for the crisis, refused to take the offer and relied on Islamic banking instead. It was the only country which survived the crisis without much damage.
In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald (October 11-12, 2008), Clancy Yeates (‘Islamic finance rides the storm’) shows that the story is being repeated. Whereas we in the West are in a severe global crash, the Dow Jones’s Islamic financial index rose 4.75 per cent in the most recent September quarter and lost a modest 7 per cent in the previous years.
What does this teach us? I would say that, beside the immense debts accumulated particularly in the US, the almost unrestricted speculation (which is often connected with accumulation of debt) is at least to a large degree responsible for the present meltdown.
A propos speculation: The US-magazin Fortune reports that Credit Default Swaps (CDS’s) have doubled annually over the last decade. Trading in CDS’s is completely non-transparent, therefore the CDS volume can only be estimated. Such estimates arrive at US$ 54.5 trillion (compared with the global GNP of US$ 54.3 trillion). What would be the result if sellers default on their payments?
(Wikipedia: “A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the “buyer” makes periodic payments to the “seller” in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default or credit event in respect of a third party or “reference entity”.)
I watched the ABC’s 7.30 Report yesterday (8.10.08), in which Steve Keen, Professor of economics at the University of Western Sydney, was interviewed about his views on the present global financial crisis. This reminded me of a book I read about four years ago by Steve Keen: Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences. Pluto Press 2001. I read it very carefully from beginning to end, making numerous annotations, but had forgotten most of it.
I recommend the book strongly to anybody who is interested in economics, but particularly to those who believe that they have all the answers about the economy, without being blessed with the necessary background knowledge.
Steve Keen wrote the book to correct the misleading teaching of economics at universities. According to him (p.5), many students do only introductory courses in economics and then take their wisdom into their careers as managers, politicians etc. “They might learn, for example. that ‘externalities’ reduce the efficiency of the market mechanism. However, they will not learn that the ‘proof’ that markets are efficient is itself flawed. One needs an understanding of quite difficult areas of mathematics to realize the intellectual weaknesses of economics. ” However, Keen does not target economics in general, but the mainstream ‘neoclassical economics’.
A few quotes from the book:
p.2: “Economists blame these crises on particular economic policy failings by the relevant governments… Yet many non-economists harbour the suspicion that perhaps these crises were in some sense caused by following the advice of economists” This perspective was recently supported by none other than Joseph Stiglitz, a renowned economist, Chief Economist and Vice-President of the World Bank (he gives the examples of the collapse of the Russian economy after rapid privatization, and the Asian crisis, where the IMF’s enforcement of austerity seriously worsened a crisis which had been initiated by the international capital markets).
p.4: “Virtually every aspect of conventional economic theory is intellectually unsound; virtually every economic policy recommendation is just as likely to do general harm as it is to lead to the general good”.
p.7:”though weather forecasts are sometimes incorrect, overall meteorologists have an enviable record of accurate prediction” whereas the economic record is tragically bad.
p.8:”the intellectual discipline of economics shows no tendency to reform itself.”
p.11: the book’s message, that the economic mantra (“individuals should pursue their own interests and leave society’s overall interests to the market”) is wrong, is not new. Many books have made the same point in the past. What is new about this book is that it makes that point using economic theory itself.
Keen ‘debunks’ almost every assumption of neoclassical economics, including equilibrium assumptions. For each argument, he goes back to the basics, such as Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, which really is at the basis of neoclassical economics with its claim that human behaviour is the product of innate drives to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Of particular interest in the context of the present financial crisis is his detailed discussion of causes of crashes, e.g., those responsible for the Great Depression (the economic guru of the time, Irving Fisher, was dead sure that stock markets had permanently stabilized just weeks before the crash, an assumption based on his equilibrium theory, later distilled into the efficient markets hypothesis. He personally lost $100 million in the crash. He changed his ideas incorporating nonequilibrium assumptions. When the crash was over, people happily returned to his efficient market hypothesis, although it had been proven wrong).
I leave it at that and, again, recommend the book.
See also: http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/free-markets-and-free-trade-ecology-and/xk923bc3gp4/25#
George Soros, the multibillionaire and author of The Bubble of American Supremacy (in which he pointed , five years ago, to the problems leading to the present financial crisis), has just published another book, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets.
I have not yet read it, but certainly will. This brief account is based on an article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald (October 6, 2008) dealing with the book. It arrives at some of the same conclusions which I presented in my Knol article on Free Trade and Free Markets, Ecology and Economics, namely that one cannot expect free markets to be self-regulatory, leading to equilibrium.
Here are some excerpts from the newspaper article:
He says we should not trust financial markets to be self-correcting, or innately stable, or innately wise.”Prices in financial markets do not necessarily tend towards equilibrium. They do not just passively reflect the fundamental conditions of demand and supply.” He is rejecting the supposed truism that the market is always right.
Soros points out that we are not just caught in an asset bubble that is rapidly deflating, we are currently experiencing the bursting of a credit bubble that has involved the entire financial system” and will affect commodities.
Among other remedies, Soros recommends “the rapid development of fuel alternatives to oil, and a crackdown on financial derivatives speculation.
Of course, as we know, others believe that the markets are always right. See for example Michael Sterner: The Mind of the Market, who compares Adam Smith with Darwin, concluding that both free-market economics and evolution by natural selection are “unimprovable”. I refer again to my knol article and repeat that market fundamentalism and a fundamentalist belief in the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin are wrong.
Listen to an interview with George Soros here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html?ref=reddit
Baruch de Spinoza
Es gibt in der Natur nichts Zufälliges, sondern alles ist gemäss der Notwendigkeit der göttlichen Natur bestimmt, auf gewisse Weise da zu sein und zu wirken.
Nothing in nature is accidental, everything is determined by the necessity of divine nature to exist and act in a certain way.
I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion.
Ich weiss nicht wie man Philosophie lehren kann ohne etablierte Religion zu verstören.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Nichts ist widerwärtiger als die Majorität, denn sie besteht aus wenigen kräftigen Vorgängern, aus Schelmen, die sich akkomodieren, aus Schwachen, die sich assimilieren und der Masse, die nachtrollt, ohne nur im mindesten zu wissen, was sie will.
Nothing is more disgusting than the majority, because it consists of a few strong forerunners, of imps who accommodate themselves, of weaklings who assimilate, and of the masses who imitate without knowing in the least what they want.
Oscar Wilde
Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Heutzutage wissen die Leute den Preis von allem und den Wert von nichts.
(My translations)
Jedoch nimm nichts zu ernst, selbst Zitate nicht:
(However don’t take anything, even quotes, too seriously:)
Der verrückte Maler von (the jolly painter by) Klaus Rohde:
“Damned, again, nothing sold today (Verdammt, wieder heute nichts verkauft)”
(A quote by, Zitat von Klaus Rohde)
I have published a knol on how recent developments in ecology might influence our views on economics. Have a look at the knol here and comment either in this post or on the knol.
Two excerpts here:
Summary.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was deeply influenced by a leading geologist, a demographer and an economist, who had the ideas that geological changes in the past can be explained by the same factors that are operative now, that changes have been gradual, that demand grows faster than supply, leading to competition for resources, and that market forces lead to equilibria. Darwin’s theory is at the basis of much of modern ecology, i.e., equilibrium ecology. Its three pillars are competition for resources (struggle for existence), survival of the fittest, and equilibrium in nature. – In parallel, the pillars of free market economy are competition for resources, the principle of comparative advantage, and equilibria. – Here we examine how recent findings on ecology have changed our views on equilibrium in ecological systems, and whether these findings can be applied to economics.
What can ecology teach us about economics?
As we have seen, the fundamental assumptions of classical economics and equilibrium ecology are surprisingly similar. The pillars of the former are competition for resources, the principle of comparative advantage, and equilibrium; the pillars of the latter are competition for resources (struggle for existence), survival of the fittest, and equilibrium. Concerning ecology, we have seen that resources are seldom exhausted, that competition occurs but is not of the overriding importance often assumed, and that equilibrium conditions are not as common as non-equilibrium ones. This should give us some reasons to at least have a closer look at the assumptions of free market economics. There can be little doubt that there often is competition for resources, but it seems that shortages frequently are of a temporary nature. On the supply side: recent evaluations suggest that wave energy alone would be sufficient to provide all of Australia’s energy; solar energy in Saharan Africa, among others, is only being talked about. On the demand side: demand is artificially and almost(?) hysterically driven up by advertising that plays on greed and “doing better than your neighbour”; and is the political hysteria leading to an ever increasing expenditure on defense perhaps the result of aggressive instincts of man cleverly exploited by nations’ military-PR industrial complexes? – Equilibrium in economy appears to be a fairly transient condition, as shown at this very moment by the global financial crisis.
Two extracts from an article published in Aljazeera.
“Jon Sawyer, the director for the Pulitzer Centre for Crisis Reporting, said US politicians had encouraged their Georgian counterparts to think they had the backing of the US when Tbilisi decided to launch its attack on South Ossetia last week. “The US has for several years now mishandled the situation in Georgia,” he told Al Jazeera.
“The way that Mikheil Saakashvili has approached this [has been by] thinking that he could be an extension of the west, a partner of the United States.”
“In many ways we have given him cause for thinking that, with the many visits to the United States, the talk of Georgia as a beacon for democracy.”
Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees that US encouragement may have made Saakashvili “miscalculate” and send Georgian troops into South Ossetia.”
…………………….
Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the old Soviet Union, said the US had made a “serious blunder” by allying itself so closely with Georgia.
“By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its ‘national interest,’ the United States made a serious blunder,” Gorbachev said in an opinion piece to be published in the Washington Post US newspaper on Tuesday.
Other analysts say that US diplomats may have underestimated the level of anger the US recognition of Kosovo created in Moscow, leaving it fearful that Georgia would assert itself further in South Ossetia.
“The Kremlin made abundantly clear that it would view Kosovo’s independence without Serbian consent and a UN Security Council mandate as a precedent for the two Georgian de facto independent enclaves,” Dimitri Simes, the president of the Nixon Centre, wrote in a post on the Washington Note blog.
“Furthermore, while president Saakashvili was making obvious his ambition to reconquer Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Moscow was both publicly and privately warning that Georgia’s use of force to re-establish control of the two regions would meet a tough Russian reaction, including, if needed, air strikes against Georgia proper.”
Full text here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008812204333715324.html
The genocide in Rwanda, in which about 500,000 – 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by more radical Hutus over 100 days in 1994, is one of the worst cases of genocide in the last 60 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
There have been repeated stories in the press of French involvement, but now the BBC has published the following report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7542418.stm
Extracts here:
“Rwanda has accused France of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994, in which about 800,000 people were killed.
An independent Rwandan commission said France was aware of preparations for the genocide and helped train the ethnic Hutu militia perpetrators.
The report also accused French troops of direct involvement in the killings.
It named 33 senior French military and political figures that it said should be prosecuted. France has previously denied any such responsibility.
Among those named in the report were the late former president, Francois Mitterrand, and two former prime ministers, Dominique de Villepin and Edouard Balladur.”
………..
“The BBC’s Geoffrey Mutagoma in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, says the commission spent nearly two years investigating France’s alleged role in the genocide.
It heard testimonies from genocide survivors, researchers, writers and reporters.”
I know little about the history and ethnicities of this part of Africa. What interest did France have in siding with the Hutus? Apparently, the massacres led to the Congo wars. The second Congo war, which began in 1998, cost about 5.4 million lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
Should major western political figures be put before an international court, if evidence justifies it?
The international free trade negotiations, which could have led to a large increase in trade between countries, has collapsed, because of disagreements between India and China on the one and the USA on the other side. Apparently, nations could not agree on a safety mechanism which would have protected farmers in developing countries from a flooding of their markets by agricultural products from developed countries. Who is at fault? Or is there no sense in asking that question? After all, each government has to protect its citizens. However, whoever is responsible, the world’s poor will suffer most.
See here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d04389e4-5dcd-11dd-8129-000077b07658.html
Google has opened a new free encyclopedia “Knol” (abbreviation of Knowledge). It has certain advantages over Wikipedia, with which it will compete: 1) articles are published under their authors’ names; 2) authors have the option to exclude any changes by readers, allow changes which must be approved by the author, or allow any changes; 3) articles can be reviewed; 4) articles on the same topic by different authors are accepted; 5) it is possible to write comments on articles.
I published an article (in German) on Meeresparasiten (marine parasites) in Knol. Have a look:
http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/meeresparasiten-wirtschaftliche-und/xk923bc3gp4/2#
In his brilliant book “The Black Swan. The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Penguin Books, 2007” Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues that unlikely, unforeseeable events are of extreme importance, much more so than probable ones, in history, politics, science, etc. However, attention is usually paid to the latter. This reinforces my view, expressed in several earlier posts, on the importance of nonequilibrium conditions in ecology, and on the danger of making political decisions based on equilibrium assumptions (click Nash equilibria in politics). In this post I briefly draw attention to his views on developments in modern philosophy, which agree with what I said about the hairsplitting in discussions of the “Nonidentity Problem”, and about “Postmodern Philosophy”.
Here are some extracts from his book (Prologue: pp. xxvii-xxviii):
“Talk is cheap.”
…
“Indeed those who read too much Wittgenstein ……. may be under the impression that language problems are important. They may certainly be important to attain prominence in philosophy departments”, but for not much else.
“Thus I rail against sterile skepticism”, the kind we can do nothing about, and against the exceedingly theoretical language problems that have made much of modern philosophy largely irrelevant to what is derisively called the “general public”. ” One reason, according to Taleb, is that academics in abstract disciplines depend on each other’s opinion, without having any external checks.
(Taleb is Professor in the Sciences of Uncertainty at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and author of the bestselling (in 18 languages) “Fooled by Randomness”)
I have just started reading the book and may return to it later. I know little about Wittgenstein, hence comments by professional philosophers and others would be most welcome.
As we hear, the U.S. president has removed Nelson Mandela from the list of terrorists, just in time for his 90th birthday celebrations. Congratulations, Nelson Mandela!
During two weeks away from Armidale, I have had time to read three very interesting books
Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence, 2007 (The autobiography of the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat, The Globalized World in the Twent-First Century, 2006 (an account of the causes and effects of globalization by the three times Pulitzer Prize winner)
and
Loretta Napoleoni, Rogue Economics, Capitalism’s New Reality, 2008 (an account of the effects of globalization by the author of the bestselling (in 13 languages) Terror Inc.: Tracing the Money behind Global Terrorism).
Each book is fascinating and stimulating. I shall discuss aspects of each in later posts (hopefully, if I have the time).
Today just a single quote from Greenspan page 463:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”.
There you have it. After all, Greenspan has had very close contacts with the most important figures in several presidencies, including the present one. He should know.
I have commented on this in a previous post. The full article is now available on the web.
Click here :
http://www.tilgher.it/biologiae.html
Go to “latest issue”, to “News and Views”, to “free full text”.
From the Sydney Morning Herald 1.7.08 (Full text here:
Excerpt:
“Talk heats up on Iran after claim of raids.
THE United States is running a covert operation into Iran funded by $US400 million ($416 million) siphoned from other programs with authorisation from Democratic congressional leaders, according to a report in The New Yorker.
The US Congress agreed to the request from the President, George Bush, late last year to fund a large escalation of secret raids against Iran, the foreign affairs reporter Seymour Hersh wrote.
“United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with presidential authorisation, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of ‘high-value targets’ in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed,” Hersh wrote.
The report, which did not name any sources, was flatly denied yesterday by the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Mr Crocker told CNN: “US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else.” ”
If true, is this aggression?
See earlier posts on Iran/Iraq, in particular
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/03/12/an-ominous-sign-admiral-fallon-resigns/
Ball verloren, Spiel verloren, aus? Deutschland: Spanien 0:1. Aber immerhin, man hat es ins Finale geschafft. Und: völlig falsch: Deutschland Europa-Vizemeister, Hurra!!
SO HÄTTE ES SEIN KÖNNEN: Allgemeine Verzweiflung: Deutschland ist raus. Aber Gottseidank kam es nicht so: Deutschland: Portugal 3:2. Wollen wir hoffen, dass es so weiter geht. Bis dahin: ist Deutschland da, wo es wirklich zählt, immer noch an der Spitze? Denkt nur an die Wissenschaft, Literatur und Kunst. Vor allem, wie ist es mit dem Stolz auf unsere Sprache?
Siehe auch meine früheren Posts über “Deutsche Dummheit, Deutsche Weisheit”, vor allem No.1.
Aus der New York Times 22 June 2008: “Great opera, food and galleries have made the city the world’s cultural capital.”
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/travel/22berlin.html?8dpc
Ich kenne Berlin gut. Irgendwelche Fragen an mich beantworte ich unter “comments”.
I know Berlin well. Any questions directed to me will be answered under “comments”.
Sydney Morning Herald, June 21-22, 2008.
Some excerpts from
“The future price of oil? Pick a number.”
“The invasion of Iraq cost the world $6 trillion in higher energy prices alone”
“An oil adviser to the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organization…”told a British parliamentary committee last month that Iraq had offered the US a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened 10 new giant oil fields on ‘generous’ terms, in return for lifting the sanctions. “This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price”, he said. “But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil.” ”
In this context, in the same newspaper one or two days ago, it was reported that the US was negotiating with the Iraqi government to obtain exclusive oil exploitation rights for some large US companies, without competitive bidding.
One could add that lifting the sanctions would have saved the lives of about half a million children as well.
See previous posts on Iran/Iraq.
What is postmodern philosophy? Has it a clear meaning? Apparently not, since postmodern philosophers claim that there is no absolute truth in anything. Hence, nothing can be clearly defined.
From Wikipedia:
“Some writers and theorists fear Kalle Lasn’s description of our contemporary society” (Kalle Lasn & Bruce Grierson, A Malignant Sadness, ADBUSTERS #30, June/July 2000):
“Post-modernism is arguably the most depressing philosophy ever to spring from the western mind. It is difficult to talk about post-modernism because nobody really understands it. It’s allusive to the point of being impossible to articulate. But what this philosophy basically says is that we’ve reached an endpoint in human history. That the modernist tradition of progress and ceaseless extension of the frontiers of innovation are now dead. Originality is dead. The avant-garde artistic tradition is dead. All religions and utopian visions are dead and resistance to the status quo is impossible because revolution too is now dead. Like it or not, we humans are stuck in a permanent crisis of meaning, a dark room from which we can never escape.”
So, what is all the fuzz about? One might argue about whether there is truth in many statements about philosophy, religion, ethics, among others, not to mention politics, but is there really no truth in science? . Anyway, what is truth?
From BBC Online June 10, 08:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm
“BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
Waxman: “It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history.”
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC’s Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.”
“While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.”
So, after all, the Iraq invasion has been a success!!! Or are there still doubters around who question the morality of the Iraq invasion? Shame on them!
Als emeritierter Professor hat man Zeit, sich gründlicher mit politischer Problematik und mit Geschichte (ohne die ein Verständniss der gegenwärtigen Politik kaum möglich ist) zu befassen. Wie macht man das am besten? Meiner Ansicht nach hilft es auf jeden Fall, wenn man sich vor Ort informiert. So war ich kürzlich in Malaysia und Vietnam, um mich an Ort und Stelle mit den gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen vertraut zu machen. Ich lebte 1960 bis 1967 in Malaysia, und habe es in den folgenden Jahren wiederholt besucht, das letzte Mal vor etwa 5-6 Jahren. Mein Vietnambesuch war der erste.
MALAYSIA: Der Fortschritt in Malaysia seit der Unabhängigkeit ist erstaunlich. Ein modernes Autostrassensystem, ein moderner Flughafen, eine aus dem Boden gestampfte neue Hauptstadt (Putrajaya) nicht weit von Kuala Lumpur. 1960 ging die Autofahrt von Singapore nach Kuala Lumpur über eine gewundene enge Strasse durch Gummi- und Ölpalmenplantagen, und zum Teil durch den Dschungel, heute geht das einige Male schneller über eine moderne Autostrasse. Die Fortschritte sind sicherlich zu einem grossen Teil auf die Zukunftsvision und die Energie des letzten Premierministers Dr. Mohammed Mahathir zurückzuführen (der erst kürzlich seinen common sense unter Beweis stellte, als er in London auf einer islamischen Konferenz erklärte, Bush, Blair und Howard sollten als Kriegsverbrecher wegen der Invasion des Iraq vor einen internationalen Gerichtshof gestellt werden).“ Es gab immer Spannungen zwischen den Volksgruppen in Malaysia (Malaien, Chinesen, Inder), die sich 1969 in Rassenkrawallen mit Toten entluden, doch scheinen diese Spannungen seitdem einigermassen unter Kontrolle gehalten worden zu sein. Insgesamt war mein Eindruck sehr positiv, und man kann Malaysia nur das allerbeste für die Zukunft wünschen.
VIETNAM: Mein Besuch beschränkte sich auf Ho Chi Minh City, mit vielen Besuchen verschiedener Museen, von Märkten und einer Wasserpuppen-Vorführung, eine alte vietnamesische Tradition. Ich brachte viel Zeit damit zu, über den Vietnamkrieg nachzulesen und die angelesenen Informationen in Museen zu vertiefen. Die Leute sehr freundlich, intelligent und energisch. Millionen im Vietnamkrieg umgebracht, und Vergiftungen durch die en gros abgeworfenen Herbizide immer noch neu erworben. Wofür das alles? Man lese nach in:
Marc Frey: Geschichte des Vietnamkrieges. Die Tragödie in Asien und das Ende des amerikanischen Traumes. Zweite Auflage Verlag C.H. Beck, München 1999.
Marc Frey ist (oder war) wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Nordamerikaprogramm der Universität Bonn. Seine Hauptarbeitsgebiete sind die amerikanische Zeitgeschichte und die Geschichte der Dekolonisierung in Südostasien.
Leute, die sich mit europäischer Geschichte befassen, lassen andere Gebiete oft völlig ausser Acht. Aber ist es nicht wichtig, die Motive verschiedener Nationen (oder vielmehr ihrer Regierungen) zu verstehen, indem man ihre Handlungen in anderen Gegenden der Erde ebenfalls berücksichtigt? Das erste grosse Morden im 20. Jahrhundert fand wohl im amerikanisch-philippinischen Krieg statt (bis zu einer Million Zivilisten getötet), und der Vietnamkrieg war der am längsten dauernde Krieg des 20. Jahrhunderts, mit weitaus massiveren Flächenbombardierungen als im 2. Weltkrieg.
Übrigens: sowohl in Malaysia wie auch in Vietnam fällt auf, dass junge Menschen das Strassenbild bestimmen (Millionen von kleinen Motorrädern in Ho Chi Minh City, meist mit jungen Leuten! Man braucht so einigen Mut, sich über die Strassen zu wagen). Kommt man dagegen nach Europa oder Australien: weitaus vergreister!
From the Huffington Post 9.6.08:
McClatchy reports the U.S. is demanding 58 military bases in Iraq as part of a “status of forces” agreement that would allow American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely:
Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed “status of forces” agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
_Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
“The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,” said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. “We were occupied by order of the Security Council,” he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. “But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.”
_The proposed “status of forces” agreement could lead to an uprising in Iraq, according to a leading Iraqi cleric:…..”
Is this what it was about all along? What has Barack Obama to say about this?
See also https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/06/04/throw-down-a-shot-of-liquor-and-bomb-a-country/
In a previous post I discussed the non-identity problem.
Here I present examples illustrating three aspects of the Problem.
FIRST EXAMPLE: One problem raised in a seminar on the Problem was whether a cat, which – by some as yet undiscovered procedure – would have acquired human mental abilities, should be given the same moral considerations as humans. Look at the pictures: “cats” in the upper and genuine “humans” in the lower row. Aren’t the little “human” cat and her family sweet? After all, the supposed great mental abilities have led to some other, more “human”, changes as well. Do you recognize any significant differences between the two groups except for the bigger ears in the “cats”? Would you agree that, in spite of the big ears, they are as sweet or sweeter than the family in the second row, entirely human derived ? But does this qualify them for humane treatment? What makes a being human? And do only human beings qualify for moral considerations and humane treatment?
SECOND EXAMPLE: An important assumption of the non-identity problem is “the fact that the identities of those affected by our choices may be altered by the choices we make (that is, different people may come to exist if we make one choice rather than another)”. Quite true, of course, but how many of the perceived changes are indeed the result of intentional actions subject to moral judgments? Look at the possible outcomes of fairly minor genetic alterations:
Well, how many mutations were involved? – Probably not many, and none of them deliberately induced. And don’t forget: many mutations are pleiotropic, i.e., they cause not a single change, but many. Are all these representatives of possible future generations simply freak accidents in evolution? Which of the types qualifies most for our moral considerations? Which one do we want to populate the future Earth? These freaks cannot even agree on the type of favourite ball game: on the left the most primitive of the games, rugby, on the right one not yet seen in the recent world, but what does it matter: all players seem to be quite happy with their particular toy.
THIRD EXAMPLE: what is the better outcome: 50 billion people on Earth living just above the existence minimum, but most people still better off than if they were non-existent? Or: 10 billion people living a much “happier” existence? Or : Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, even happier? A decision is difficult. If we want to maximise “happiness”, do we chose the greatest “total” happiness (50 or 10 billlion people), or the greatest “average” happiness (Adam and Eve, if they are or were indeed happier). Too complicated for me. I leave the decision to the professor below who is ruminating about the Problem.
But don’t forget, the decision to limit population numbers may affect you: you or your direct offspring may not be among those chosen to survive!
About three weeks ago, Hillary Clinton said, when asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, that the USA could “totally obliterate” Iran if it was foolish enough to do this. Senator Lieberman is an influential democratic Senator and was the Vice-presidential running mate of Al Gore.
I found this in the Huffington Post (14.5.08) under: “Lieberman: Hillary’s Threat To Bomb Iran Has A Certain Appeal To It.”
The extract is taken from an interview on the rightwing “Bill Bennett’s radio show” with senator Lieberman.
“Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the ‘appeal’ of the hawkish caricature Bennett had created:
…..
BENNETT: Listen, I give her credit. She (Hillary Clinton) as found her three things. She’s found her voice. He is very much in the background now, it’s not this, you know, ventriloquial thing, it’s definitely her voice.
LIEBERMAN: That’s true.
BENNETT: And Joe, you know, this is my style. This is a girl who puts on her pearls, goes down, throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran, you know. This is lookout Mrs. Bennett, this is my kind of girl.
LIEBERMAN: Hehehe, it does have an appeal to it.”
……….
This reinforces my view about the US elections. Click here.
See also here.
A few days ago I attended a philosophy seminar at UNE on the non-identity problem. I had never heard of this before and was intrigued. In the following some ideas which I put up for discussion.
Derek Parfit, an English philosopher, has formulated the non-identity problem in his book “Reasons and Persons”. The problem is important in bioethics, helping us to judge about the morality of actions that may affect future generations. In the following, I use the summary of John Nolt to critically examine some of the points made by Parfit. My comments in bold and italics. I must point out, however, that I have not read Parfit’s book and wish to see this post as a basis for discussion and not more. Parfit, apparently, draws attention to paradoxes arising from various assumptions, and I am not sure at which conclusion he finally arrives. The problems discussed are certainly important, with consequences for environmental policy and population control, among others.
Summary of Parfit, Chs. 16-17 by John Nolt
“Chapter 16: The Non-Identity Problem
Chapter 16’s title seems to denote two closely-related ideas:
(1) the fact that the identities of those affected by our choices may be altered by the choices we make (that is, different people may come to exist if we make one choice rather than another), and
(2) the problem of constructing a true moral theory (which Parfit calls Theory X) that is adequate to deal with this fact.
(ad 1): I thought it is self-evident that many of our actions, often very small and unintentional ones, may affect who comes into existence later. But does it matter? Is it really important who comes into existence, as long as somebody does? We have no or little control over most of our actions, consequences of our actions are often non-intentional, and therefore not subject to moral judgments. Even if some of our actions are so significant and strong that they must have some important effects on future generations, we have no way of assessing what future generations would have looked like without our imput.
(ad 2): From the last sentence of my comment on (1) it follows that a “true moral theory” dealing with “the fact that the identities of those affected by our choices may be altered by the choices we make”, if at all possible, will not be able, in principle, to cover a large and possibly the largest part of our actions.
With regard to (1) Parfit argues that a large-scale public policy may in a couple of centuries so change the course of events that no one will exist who would have existed had a different policy been adopted. This follows, Parfit thinks, from: The Time-Dependence Claim: If any particular person had not been conceived within a month of the time when he was in fact conceived, he would in fact never have existed (351). Why within a month? Certainly even a second may make all the difference, because different sperm would almost certainly be involved. Of course the fact that policy choices might completely alter a population does not follow from the time-dependence claim alone. Some auxiliary assumptions must be also made about the effects of public policies on human reproduction. Parfit also assumes that one could not have been conceived by parents other than one’s actual parents. (This and the time-dependence claim seem questionable only from such unlikely metaphysical standpoints as the doctrine of pre-existence of souls.) These necessary auxiliary assumptions seem plausible. It is true, of course, that different parents could not have produced me, but the same parents may produce different offspring, not only because the genes in eggs and sperm differ, but also because the time of conception and birth is important. A baby is likely to be very sensitive to its first experiences in the womb and after birth (compare the imprinting of birds: probably not as clearcut in humans, but nevertheless of some importance, although I admit that my knowledge of develomental psychology is non-existent). Or take the example of identical twins: they are indeed very similar, but still different identities. Not only the genes, but the environmental conditions guiding the expression of genes, are important in forming the character of a person. But even if environmental conditions are practically identical, the fact of spatial separateness would still make them different identities.
Parfit next observes that moral choices are of three kinds:
1 The same people will have existed regardless of which action we take (same-people choices)
Many of one’s actions will not affect who will come into existence, but many others will, and many of them unintentional and beyond our control.
2 Different people will have existed if we take one action rather than others, but their numbers will have been the same (same-number choices)
Same comment as for previous.
3 Different numbers of (different) people will have existed depending on our choice (different-number choices).
Same as for last two points.
Traditional moral thinking usually concerns same-people choices. (This is true even in life-and-death decisions, because even if a person dies as a result of a decision, that person will still have existed.) But moral thinking about future generations usually concerns different-number choices. Same-number choices are an intermediate case. Chapter 16 examines same-number choices as a preliminary to considering different number choices, which are more problematic.
The appropriate moral principles for same-number choices, according to Parfit, are:
The Same Number Quality Claim (Q): If in either of two possible outcomes the same number of people would ever live, it would be worse if those who live are worse off, or have a lower quality of life, than those who would have lived. (360) We do not have any real control over who might live and who might not and The No-Difference View: It makes no difference to the morality of an act whether the same people or different people will have existed if we act otherwise. (367, 369) As for last point The No-Difference View can be more fully articulated as follows: If choice C1 is between outcome A and outcome B happening to the same people and choice C2 is between outcome A happening to one set of people and outcome B happening to a different set, then there is no moral difference between the choices (outcome A is of equal value in either choice, and so is outcome B).
Q and the No-Difference View, both of which Parfit affirms, conflict with a plausible alternative:
The Person-Affecting View (V): It will be worse if [specific] people [who would exist no matter what we choose] are affected for the worse. (370) I take this to mean: if choice C1 is between outcome A and outcome B happening to the same people and choice C2 is between outcome A happening to one set of people and outcome B happening to a different set, and if outcome B is the worst of the two, then B is worse if it results from choice C1 rather than from choice C2.
But another interpretation is: If choice C is between outcome A and outcome B and B is worse for some people (who would exist in A) than A is
Parfit illustrates the differences among these views by various hypothetical examples. Among these are:
The example of depletion vs. conservation: Under the policy of depletion the quality of life would be slightly better for everyone for 200 years than under conservation but thereafter it would be considerably worse. Parfit supposes that after 200 years of the policy of depletion an entirely different population will exist than would have if conservation had been the policy. Hence depletion benefits those who live for the first 200 years and is worse for no one who is born later (since without the policy these people would not have existed: At first glance this statement seems to be nonsense. Are those people who do exist – although they are not the same as those who would exist without our actions – not worth considering?). It is therefore worse for no one, period. (Nevertheless, Q implies that depletion is wrong. V, by contrast, implies that conservation is wrong because depletion is worse for no one, but conservation is worse for those who live in the first 200 years.)
The example of two medical programs: Two proposed medical programs have identical costs and effects, except that one would cure 1000 already existing fetuses of a handicap, while the other would instead of curing these fetuses prevent the same handicap in 1000 people yet to be conceived. (V implies that the policy which would prevent the handicap is worse, but the No-Difference View implies that these policies are morally equivalent.)
Parfit thinks these examples show that we should accept Q and the No-Difference View and reject V. If so, then we have sound principles for dealing with same-number choices. That is the main point of Chapter 16. Though Parfit’s view is intuitively appealing, this is not a conclusive argument. There may be many other ways of justifying one policy over the other in each of these examples.
Parfit does consider one such alternative justification: that depletion is bad not because it lowers the general quality of life but because it violates the rights of future generations. But there are, as he notes, at least two problems with this claim. One is that it is not obvious that future generations have a right to a high quality of life (especially if, as in Parfit’s example, their quality of life, even in the depletion scenario, is higher than ours). The second problem is that we can hardly be said to be violating the rights of people by depleting the resources available to them if the only other option (as in Parfit’s example) is that they never exist. People’s rights cannot, in other words, be violated by a policy to which they owe their (reasonably worthwhile) existence.
Finally, Parfit draws a preliminary conclusion about the desired theory X. Many moral theories evaluate an action as better or worse only insofar as it is better or worse for the people whom it affects. Parfit characterizes such theories as having a person-affecting form (371, 378). Parfit argues that the correct general theory X will not have a person-affecting form. He claims that this conclusion follows from the No-Difference View together with the assumption that to cause to exist is not a benefit. This argument, first developed on pp. 369-371, and summarized at the bottom of p. 378, may be more fully articulated as follows:
(1) It makes no difference to the morality of an act whether the same people or different people will have existed if we act otherwise. (No-Difference View)
This does not make sense. How can we possibly know whether the same or different people will exist in the future (see above)
(2) Causing to exist is not a benefit.
(3) There is a unique true theory X.
So (4) The true theory X will not have a person-affecting form (i.e., will not consider an action as better or worse only insofar as it is better or worse for the people whom it affects). Unfortunately, the conclusion doesn’t follow directly from the stated premises. Yet I think we can make sense of the argument by considering that there are only two ways in which an act A might be better or worse for a person whom it effects: (i) This person would have existed regardless of whether we chose an alternative action, but A is better or worse for her than the alternatives
(ii) This person would never have existed on at least some of the alternatives to A—that is, act A is part of what causes her to exist and is in that sense a benefit to her.
Now if we assume that causing to exist is not a benefit, then the only remaining way in which an act might be better or worse for a person whom it effects is if it is the result of a choice in which this person would have existed regardless of what we chose. This seems hairsplitting to me. As above: we do not know how our actions can affect the existence or non-existence of future people. Hence (still assuming that causing to exist is not a benefit), any true theory with a person-affecting form will evaluate an act as better or worse only if it is the result of a choice in which the same people would exist regardless of what we choose (same-person choice). As above: we have little control over who will exist. Therefore: (P) If causing to exist is not a benefit, then any true theory with a person-affecting form must imply that it makes some difference to the morality of an act whether the same people or different people will have existed if we act otherwise. —for our very ability to evaluate the act morally will depend on whether the same people or different people will have existed if we act otherwise.
If we now add (P) to premises (1)-(3), we obtain a valid argument that I think adequately reflects Parfit’s reasoning. Doubt remains, of course, concerning its soundness, for premises (1), (2) and (3) all are questionable.
Chapter 17: The Repugnant Conclusion
This short chapter discusses an anomaly that arises in different-number choices. The problem is that in large populations, each additional person born may lower the quality of life for all (due to overcrowding, competition for limited resources, etc.). But the total quality of life that that additional person enjoys may nevertheless outweigh the total loss of quality of life to everyone else. If so, then (assuming—and this assumption is crucial—that our goal is to maximize total quality of life) it is better for the population to increase, even though that increase may lower everyone’s quality of life, even to a level at which it is barely worth living. But this conclusion seems paradoxical and absurd. How can we possibly control all this? Parfit therefore calls it The Repugnant Conclusion. The principle that engenders the paradox is:
The Impersonal Total Principle: If other things are equal, the best outcome is the one in which there would be the greatest quantity of whatever makes life worth living. (387) If we take what makes life to be worth living as happiness, this is the classic utilitarian idea of maximizing happiness. What The Repugnant Conclusion is supposed to show is that classical utilitarianism and any other theories that assume the Impersonal Total Principle fail as candidates for Theory X. They fail, specifically, because they imply The Repugnant Conclusion (which is absurd) in certain different-number choices involving population growth.
The paradox results from the fact that in a growing population it is possible for total quality of life to increase while the average quality of life (quality per person) decreases. We might, then, in an effort to escape The Repugnant Conclusion, suppose that it is average quality of life that matters. If so, we might affirm:
The Impersonal Average Principle: If other things are equal, the best outcome is the one in which people’s lives go, on average, best. (386) Parfit will later show that this principle too engenders paradox.”
Considering all my previous comments, it seems to me that many of the ideas related to the non-identity problem are somewhat obscure. Who can possibly know how most of our actions will affect who will be in existence in the future and who will not. Most of our actions are unintentional, but nevertheless may have immense effects on what will happen. Remember the butterfly effect! Furthermore: it seems to me quite irrelevant to base moral judgements on whether the “same” or different people will be affected by our actions. The reason: we do not know and cannot know in principle what a future person or a future population would look like without imput from our actions. All we can hope for is that important personal or government actions will make it likely that future conditions are beneficial to mankind as a whole. And this includes policies which guarantee that resources on Earth are never over-exploited. —- Finally, in a discussion of the non-identity problem the question was raised whether a cat who by means of some treatment had acquired human mental powers, would qualify for the same moral considerations as humans. Of course it would: it would be human! —- This leads to another point: the discussion of non-identity seems to be restricted to humans (but I may be wrong on this, I am not familiar with most of the literature). I conclude with Schopenhauer:
“Die vermeintliche Rechtlosigkeit der Tiere, der Wahn, dass unser Handeln gegen sie ohne moralische Bedenken sei, ist eine geradezu empörende Barbarei des Abendlandes. Die Tiere sind kein Fabrikat zu unserem Gebrauch. Nicht Erbarmen, sondern Gerechtigkeit ist man den Tieren schuldig.
The supposed rightlessness of animals, the delusion that we can act towards them without moral scruples, is a really disgusting barbarity of the Western world. Animals are not constructs for our use. We owe them justness and not mercy.”
Schopenhauers moral philosophy based on compassion with the suffering of animals and man, appears to be a sounder basis of ethical judgments than the hairsplitting related to the non-identity problem. But I repeat: I know very little of the literature and put this post up as a basis for discussion, and only that.
THE AIM OF ALL THE ABOVE: I HOPE THAT GENUINE PHILOSOPHERS WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME COMMENTS!
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank John Nolt for permission to use his summary.
Friedrich II. von Preussen, Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel
Man müsste es dahin bringen, dass sich alle Menschen des Fanatismus und der Intoleranz schämen.
One should bring about that all men are ashamed of fanaticism and intolerance.
Schopenhauer, in Bezug auf die Wahrheit, Schopenhauer, with regard to truth
Wenn man einen Teeloeffel Wein in ein Fass Jauche giesst, ist das Resultat Jauche. Wenn man einen Teelöffel Jauche in ein Fass Wein giesst, ist das Resultat ebenfalls Jauche.
If you pour a teaspoon of wine into a barrel of manure, you get manure, if you pour a teaspoon of manure into a barrel of wine, you also get manure.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel
Dass in Kirchen gepredigt wird macht deswegen die Blitzableiter auf ihnen nicht unnötig.
Preaching in churches does not make lightning conductors there superfluous.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel
Ein Gelübde zu tun ist eine grössere Sünde, als es zu brechen.
It is a greater sin to take an oath than to break one.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel.
Vergleichung zwischen einem Prediger und einem Schlosser.¨Der erste sagt: du sollst nicht stehlen wollen; und der andere: du sollst nicht stehlen können.
Comparison of a preacher and a locksmith. The former says: You must not wish to steal, and the latter: you must not be able to steal.
Klopstock, Epigramme. Projekt Gutenberg, der Spiegel
Widriger sind mir die redenden, als die schreibenden Schwätzer: Diese leg’ ich weg; jenen entflieh’ ich nicht stets.
Babblers who talk are worse than babblers who write. The latter I can put aside, from the former I cannot always escape.
Franz Grillparzer, Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel
Die Schönheit ist die vollkommene Uebereinstimmung des Sinnlichen mit dem Geistigen.
Beauty is the perfect accord of the sensual and the spiritual.
This is the second in a series on idle professors. For the first click here.
Whether zoologist or not, a keen observer can do much useful work in his spare time, for example by watching birds or conducting experiments on bird behaviour. Select any bird, for example a crow, a raven, a magpie or a currawong in your garden. Here I illustrate a study of a controlled experiment involving a bird and a little boy. The question to be answered is: who has the keener mind and stronger character and finally prevails? Look at the sequence and conclude for yourself.
The retired professor conducting the experiment, and six critical steps in the experiment:
But every story has a moral. In this story it is: Don’t give up so easily! If you can’t get the result you want in the first experiment, come back and try again. And don’t forget: there are many thousands of bird species on earth. Plenty of work for retired professors!
I have briefly discussed Plato’s archetypes and vacant niches in two previous posts ( here and here). The detailed paper on this topic has now been accepted for publication.
Klaus Rohde: Vacant niches and the Possible Operation of Natural Laws in Ecosystems, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 101 (2008)
I draw attention to the book “The conventional lies of civilized mankind” (1883) by Max Nordau, in which he critically analyzed the situation of western mankind before the first world war. He concludes with an optimistic note suggesting that future relations should be governed by solidarity and not greed (Selbstsucht), but it seems that none of his optimism has fulfilled itself. I ask: has there been progress in history?
Max Nordau (1849 bis 1923) schrieb einige sehr einflussreiche Bücher, in denen er die Lage der Zeit (vor dem ersten Weltkrieg) analysiert. Hier ist der erste Satz aus “Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” und der letzte Abschnitt aus “Schlussharmonie” aus seinem Buch “Die konventionellen Lügen der Kulturmenschheit’ (erste Auflage 1883), in dem er seine Hoffnung für die Zukunft ausdrückt (http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=5&xid=4295&kapitel=1#gb_found)
“Die Menschheit, die gleich Faust Erkenntniss und Glück sucht, war vielleicht zu keiner Zeit so weit entfernt wie jetzt, dem Augenblicke zuzurufen: “Verweile doch, du bist so schön!”
“Aber nicht blos die Quelle aller Moral, sondern auch die aller Einrichtungen muss die Solidarität werden. In den bestehenden Formen kommt der Egoismus zum Ausdruck, die Formen, welche ihre Stelle einzunehmen berufen sind, wird der Altruismus vorzeichnen. Die Selbstsucht erweckt den Wunsch, Andere zu beherrschen, sie führt zum Despotismus, sie macht Könige, Eroberer, eigennützige Minister und Parteiführer, die Gattungsliebe gibt den Wunsch ein, der Gesammtheit zu dienen, sie führt zur Selbstverwaltung, zur Selbstbestimmung, zu einer Gesetzgebung, die blos von der Rücksicht auf das Gemeinwesen inspirirt ist. Die Selbstsucht ist die Ursache der schlimmsten Ungerechtigkeiten in der Gütervertheilung, die Solidarität gleicht diese Ungerechtigkeiten so weit aus, dass Bildung und tägliches Brod jedem Bildungsfähigen und Arbeitswilligen gesichert sind. Der Kampf ums Dasein wird so lange währen wie das Leben selbst und er wird immer die Ursache aller Entwicklung und Vervollkommnung sein; aber er wird mildere Formen annehmen und sich zu seinem heutigen
Wüthen so verhalten wie die Kriegführung gebildeter Nationen zum Würgen von Menschenfressern. Auf die Zivilisation von heute, deren Kennzeichen Pessimismus, Lüge und Selbstsucht sind, sehe ich eine Zivilisation der Wahrheit, der Nächstenliebe, des Frohmuths folgen. Die Menschheit, die heute ein abstrakter Begriff ist, wird dann eine Thatsache sein. Glücklich die spätergeborenen Geschlechter, denen es beschieden sein wird, umspielt von der reinen Luft der Zukunft, übergossen von ihrem hellern Sonnenschein, in diesem Bruderbunde zu leben, wahr, wissend, frei und gut!”
Ich überlasse dem Leser das Urteil darüber, ob sich Nordaus Wunsch erfüllt hat. Ist der Atomkrieg, die Kriegführung gebildeter Nationen, tatsächlich ein Fortschritt gegenüber dem Würgen von Menschenfressern? Und ist, was zu Nordaus Zeiten ein Wunsch war, immer nur noch ein frommer Wunsch? Wo bleibt da der Fortschritt der Menschheit?
Insgesamt, das Buch ist heute ebenso anregend wie vor 130 Jahren: eine tiefschürfende Analyse der politischen, religiösen und wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen jener und unserer Zeit. Und, da – wie wir gerade gesehen haben – sich anscheinend wenig verändert hat, sollten wir zumindest den Optimismus Nordaus wachhalten. Bitter notwendig, wie unter anderem hier zu sehen.
Auszüge aus dem Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel:
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/?id=19&autorid=343
“Als Kulturkritiker gehört er zu den bedeutendsten im deutschsprachigen Raum des 20. Jahrhunderts. Lebenslang kämpfte er in seinen Schriften Nacht für Nacht gegen Untertanengeist, gegen eine obrigkeitshörige Justiz.”
“Sein Urteil über den Weltkrieg sprach er in “In dieser grossen Zeit«, »Nachruf« und »Die letzten Tage der Menschheit«. Gegen die sich am Krieg mästende Verbrecherwelt schreibt er in “Schweigen, Wort und Tat” 1915: ” … ich werde für einen einzigen Tag ein Kommando übernehmen, das die Front in das Hinterland verlegt; die Brutstätten der Weltverpestung, die Giftstätten des Menschenhasses, die Räuberhöhlen des Blutwuchers, … täglich zweimal erfolgreich mit Bomben belegen lassen; und mit Hilfe von ausgeliehenen Kosaken … in alle jene Plätze, wo die am Krieg Verdienenden ihrer leiblichen Wohlfahrt opfern, der Fleisch- und Fettfülle ein Ende machen!”
Hat sich was geändert? Oder sitzen die Verbrecher heute nur woanders?
This is a follow-up to my last post on Fraudulence in Science and Politics which concluded with the obvious, i.e., that “Whether in science, the economy or in the media, data evaluation by people whose objectivity might be jeopardized by financial or other interests, will lead to corruption.”
The importance of this became clear when I watched the Insight program on SBS dealing with the problems of genetically modified crops. A wide variety of people participated in the discussion.
What struck me most was that, apparently, no animal experiments on the toxicity etc. of new products are required, and companies, not independent researchers, have to provide the evidence that their products are not harmful. The research conducted by these companies is to a large degree non-transparent, not subjected to peer review, and not published. In other words, rules are even less strict than in the pharmaceutic industry, where animal experiments followed by clinical tests have to be submitted to authorities before new drugs are even considered for approval.
Probably the most important objection against the wide use of genetically engineered crops is the monopolization of seed supply in the hands of very few huge companies (and in some cases a single company). It leads to disappearance of biodiversity and could – in the long term – have disastrous consequences not only for the environment but for the viability of small local farms. A few days ago a large international meeting in Paris concluded that the support of small local farmers was essential to overcome the present food crisis.
Fraud in the pharmaceutic industry:
According to the Sydney Morning Herald (April 17, 08), the US pharmaceutical company Merck has been accused of having lined up doctors (who apparently were not involved in the research) to put their names on publications in academic journals. Such ghost-writing appears to be widespread and calls into question all legitimate research of the pharmaceutic industry. Merck disputes this: although acknowledging that it sometimes paid medical writers to draft reports, it says that it then handed the reports to the doctors who did the research. However, an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association states that Merck had indeed manipulated a considerable number of publications promoting the pain drug Vioxx (which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because it was linked to heart attacks, with Merck agreeing to pay $US 4.85 billion in compensation), and that some of the authors had contributed little to the work. It suggests that each author of publications in medical journals should report his/her specific contribution.
Fraud in the politicical information industry:
The New York Times April 20, 2008, published a comprehensive report on how the Bush administration has mislead the public. Full report here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation. Its report is based on these data.
Some excerpts here:
“How the Pentagon Spread Its Message”
“Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance…..”
“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.”
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.”
“the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.”
“Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.”
“Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests.”
“Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts … properly armed … can push back in that arena”
“Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. You’ll lose all access, …”
See also
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/01/24/iraq-and-the-military-pr-industrial-complex/
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/01/09/the-military-pr-industrial-complex-past-and-present/
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/10/07/the-political-responsibility-of-scientists/
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/05/02/the-pillars-of-democracy-a-free-press/
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/04/07/the-pillars-of-democracy-a-free-press-continued/
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/03/27/iraq-war-casualties-and-iran/
Whether in science, the economy or in the media, data evaluation by people whose objectivity might be jeopardized by financial or other interests, will lead to corruption. Such corruption in politics may have catastrophic effects on the stability of the system.
Here I show what a retired professor does in his spare time. He popularizes science, as in this example!!
In a previous post I discussed Platonian archetypes and their application in ecology, with special emphasis on vacant (empty) niches. In this post I present an illustrated example.
Because the species illustrated exist in the mind of their creator, they must be considered to be archetypes. Both species have an organ, the balloon arising at their anteriors, which allows them to occupy a niche, the stratosphere, by lifting them into it whenever threatened by an enemy or in pursuit of an enemy. However, since both species have not yet made it into nature, this niche is still vacant. Of course, some people say that the niche does not yet exist, because the species have not yet occupied or “created” it. Ignore this nonsense! Scientific work should not be reduced to a squabble about semantics.
Note also that the vicious cycle continues. You may not have conquered a new niche to escape from enemies, but they will follow anyway.
In meinem Beitrag “Deutsche Weisheit, Deutsche Dummheit III. Kaffee, Kuchen und Kultur” habe ich auf einige sehr positive Erfahrungen während meines letzten Deutschlandbesuchs hingewiesen. In diesem Beitrag will ich auf einige weniger positive Eindrücke eingehen.
Stichwortartig:
Bei einem Spaziergang irgendwo im Osten Berlins Ende 2007 (Prenzlauer Berg oder Pankow) fiel mein Auge auf einige Graffiti über einem Schuleingang (Kindergarten oder Grundschule). Am auffallendsten war: “Nie wieder Deutschland”. Wer hat das wohl hingekritzelt? Vielleicht sogar ein Lehrer? Und warum war das nicht schon entfernt worden?
Die Beobachtung erinnerte mich an das, was mir eine Schülerin (18 Jahre alt) erzählte, die vor kurzem mit ihrer Familie aus der Rheingegend nach Australien gekommen war. Goethe niemals, aber gleich dreimal drittklassige Literatur über den Holocaust im Deutschunterricht an dem von ihr besuchten Gymnasium. Sie habe sich nicht mit Deutschland identifizieren wollen (oder so ähnlich).
Das folgende ging durch die Presse. Ein Professor für alte Geschichte an der Universität Greifswald hatte gewagt zu äussern, dass jedes (nicht nur historische) Ereignis einmalig sei, dass beziehe sich auf den Holocaust genauso wie auf andere Ereignisse. Aufruhr in der Presse. Eine mecklenburgisch-vorpommerische Zeitung fragte: Ging deutscher Professor ins Neonazi-Netz? Welcher Unfug: selbstverständlich ist jedes historische oder sonstwie Ereignis einmalig. Wenn jemand das Gegenteil behauptet, hat er keine Ahnung von Logik oder ist sonstwie ein Esel. Man wälzt sich sozusagen im Schlamm seiner eigenen Verworfenheit und will auf keinen Fall zugeben, dass der Holocaust zwar in seiner Art einmalig war, aber – was die Zahl der Getöteten oder die Zahl der Mittäter oder Mitwisser anbetrifft – durchaus nicht an der Spitze stand. Man sollte hierzu auch “Brief an einen jüdischen Freund” des bekannten italienischen Historikers und Publizisten Sergio Romano lesen. Romano war, unter anderem, Botschafter Italiens in Moskau und bei der Nato, und verfügt über erhebliches moralisches Renommee.
Der Deutsche heutzutage leidet daran, sich im Meer seiner Sünden geradezu sonnen zu wollen. Erinnere man sich doch an die Äusserung der Entwicklungsministerin vor etwa einem Jahr in Namibia, dem ehemaligen Deutsch-Südwestafrika. Es hörte sich an, als brüstete sie sich damit, das Deutschland als erstes Land des 20. Jahrhunderts das schlimmste Verbrechen begangen habe, nämlich bei der Niederschlagung des Herero-Aufstandes 1904-1908. Man schätzt, dass zwischen 24 000 und 64 000 Herero und etwa 10 000 Nama getötet wurden (Wikipedia). Vergleicht man hiermit den Philippinisch-amerikanischen Krieg von 1899 bis 1902 oder länger (1913): etwa 20000 philippinische Soldaten und 250 000 – 1 000 000 Zivilisten getötet (Wikipedia). Zu beachten ist, dass diese amerikanische Agression früher im 20. Jahrhundert als der Aufstand in Südwestafrika stattfand. Mir ist nicht bekannt, dass ein amerikanischer Minister jemals in den Philippinen war, um sich zu entschuldigen.
Ein weiteres betrübliches Beispiel aus einem Spiegel-Interview (“Widerwärtige Vorwürfe”, 25.6.07) mit dem estländischen Präsidenten Hendrik Ilves:
……….
Spiegel: Sie meinen die Verschleppung Ihrer Landsleute nach Sibirien, nachdem die Sowjets in Estland einmarschierten?
Ilves: Man kann über die Interpretation von Geschichte streiten, aber es ist sehr schwierig, über Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Massengräber und Tausende erschossener Menschen zu streiten. Dass die Sowjetunion im Baltikum massive Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit beging und sich nicht wie ein Befreier verhielt – das sind Fakten. Ich finde es widerwärtig, uns vorzuwerfen, wenn wir über sowjetische Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit sprechen, macht uns das zu Faschisten.
Spiegel: Auch die Deutschen irritiert die Sichtweise vieler Balten, wonach die Nazi-Besatzung nicht wesentlich schlimmer gewesen sei als die sowjetische.
Ilves: Wenn Sie mir sagen, die Nazis waren schlimmer, dann sage ich Ihnen, dass sie die kulinarischen Gewohnheiten von Kannibalen vergleichen. Ich werde nicht sagen, wer schlimmer war. Im Hinblick auf die Zahl der Ermordeten meine ich, dass die Kommunisten mehr Menschen getötet haben.…..”
Ist es nicht fast unglaublich, dass die Russen schlimmer sein sollen als die Deutschen? Anscheinend schwer verständlich für manche Deutschen.
All das das Ergebnis von 60 Jahren Hirnwäsche? All das vielleicht ganz bewusst von aussen inszeniert, um gewisse politische Ziele durchzusetzen? Eine ganze Reihe von Ländern haben ja ein direktes Interesse daran, Deutschland sozusagen moralisch unten zu halten. Es scheint mir, dass man sich instrumentieren lässt und sich damit vielleicht in zukünftige politische Aktivitäten verwickelt, die schlimmer als der Holocaust sein können.
Sollte man also den Patriotismus abschreiben und sich aufs Geldverdienen und Urlaubmachen beschränken?¨
Hierzu Henryk Broder, der ziemlich regelmässig Spiegelbeiträge schreibt und vor einiger Zeit schrieb, dass Schopenhauer (den ich sehr verehre) das letzte Wort über den Patriotismus geschrieben habe. Broder schreibt: “Über das Thema Patriotismus gibt es nichts Neues zu sagen, zumindest nichts, was über das ultimative Wort des Philosophen Arthur Schopenhauer hinaus weisen würde: “Aber jeder erbärmliche Tropf, der nichts in der Welt hat, darauf er stolz sein könnte, ergreift das letzte Mittel, auf die Nation, der er gerade angehört, stolz zu sein. Hieran erholt er sich und ist nun dankbarlich bereit, alle Fehler und Torheiten, die ihr eigen sind, mit Händen und Füssen zu verteidigen.”
Das stimmt zwar im Zusammenhang des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, und es stimmt, wenn man Patriotismus gleichsetzt mit Hurra-Patriotismus und Militarismus, aber es stimmt nicht im jetzigen Zusammenhang des Vereinten Europa. Jeder sollte stolz auf die kulturellen Errungenschaften seines Landes sein und dazu beitragen, sie weiter zu entwickeln. Die kulturelle inklusive sprachliche Diversität der einzelnen europäischen Länder muss auf jeden Fall bewahrt bleiben, und sie kann zur Stärke Europas beitragen. Um noch einmal auf Henryk Broder zurückzukommen: Nichts ist ultimativ, alles und jedes muss jederzeit neu überdacht werden in Bezug auf die Probleme der Zeit.
Man hört viel über die Gefahr von rechts. Die extreme Rechte, die sich in Extremfällen in Angriffen auf Nichtdeutsche oder vermutlich Nichtdeutsche äussert, hat wohl nur dann eine Chance, wenn man ihr durch falsches politisches Handeln einen Vorwand dafür liefert, sich als alleinige Vertreterin deutscher Interessen auszugeben. Will man solchen Leuten Vorschub leisten, indem man sich immer “politisch korrekt” verhält und sich weigert, die elementarsten Regeln des politischen und historischen Verstehens und Handelns auf sich selbst anzuwenden und sich um das wirklich korrekte Verhalten herumdrückt, weil es im Augenblick einfacher zu sein scheint? Oder bereiten Leute, die sich einbilden, der Rechten durch richterliche Massnahmen usw. Einhalt gebieten zu können, ihr durch ihre “korrekte Politik ” (political correctness) erst recht den Weg?
Weiteres hierzu in meinem Buch
Satire, Politik und Kunst: http://www.lulu.com/content/378808
I find it refreshing to find articles which disagree with the prevailing scientific dogma, such as Darwinism, which puts emphasis on selection as the main (or, apart from neutral evolution, only) driving force of evolution. Woodley’s article is such a case.
Woodley, M.A. [2007], On the possible operation of natural laws in ecosystems. Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum 100: 475-486, suggests that natural Platonic laws may operate in ecosystems. He bases this claim on two kinds of law-like behaviour observed in nature: 1) adaptations towards specialization which can be looked at as typological lineage degeneration away from “ideal” archetypes, in which specialization makes species more sensitive to environmental perturbations; 2) occurrence of convergently evolved forms which suggest a limited number of niches or possible organismal body plans (Platonic moulds).
Ad 1) 19th century biologists like Haeckel (who was a Darwinist) and others after him have indeed distinguished successive phases of initial explosive diversification, specialization and degeneration leading to extinction in various fossil lineages (‘Epacme’, ‘Acme’ and ‘Peracme’ of Ernst Haeckel [1866]. But extinction of animal groups is not a lawful phase of an evolutionary cycle, because the ancestors of extant forms have never passed through it (Rensch, B. [1954], Neuere Probleme der Abstammungslehre. Die Transspezifische Evolution. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart; Rensch, B. [1959], Evolution above the species level. Columbia University Press. N.Y.).
If Woodley were right, we would expect that species in high diversity regions, such as the tropics, where evolution is more advanced (Rohde, K. [1992], Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: the search for the primary cause. Oikos 65: 514-527) should have narrower niches (e.g., latitudinal ranges, habitats, etc.) than species in low diversity regions (at higher latitudes). However, a recent meta-analysis of the latitude niche breadth hypothesis and computer simulations failed to find support for it. Likewise, Rapoport’s rule, according to which latitudinal ranges are generally wider at high latitudes, does not generally apply to animals and plants.
Also, Kaufman’s work (Kaufman, S.A. [1993]. The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York Oxford) and some other recent studies suggest that evolution is not driven exclusively by natural selection, but that many characters evolve not because but in spite of selection: “spontaneous order is everywhere present’ and ‘many conceivable useful phenotypes do not exist’. He uses rugged fitness landscapes to illustrate the process of evolution. However, peaks in rugged fitness landscapes (which might at first glance be considered to be equivalent to archetypes) are not constant, and it is therefore doubtful that the peaks in such fitness landscapes correspond to Platonic archetypes.
Ad 2) In his discussion of the second point (limited number of available niches suggested by convergences), Woodley proceeds from Hutchinson’s niche definition as a species’ place in a multidimensional hyperspace and concludes that “in the absence of species distributions, the niche can have no substance, thus indicating that ‘vacant niche’ is simply a non-descriptive term at best”. But Hutchinson himself used the term “vacant niche”, and there is indeed no reason, even in the context of Hutchinson’s definition, why one shoud not refer to the possibility of the existence of more places in multidimensional hyperspace than are actually apparent (or “filled”) at at a particular point in time. One might prefer the term “potential” or “virtual” niches, but the term “vacant niche” has the advantage that it draws attention to the possibility that more species can be accommodated without the necessity of compressing already filled ones. As pointed out by Rohde, K. [2005], Nonequilibrium Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: “A vacant or empty niche, thus, is simply a concise way of saying that more species could exist in a habitat, as suggested by comparative studies.” – On the other hand, Woodley admits the existence of vacant niches in the Platonian context: “The existence of a vacant niche when considered in the above light is also significant, as it indicates that abstract form, wholly separate from its biological realization, can exist within an ecological context. Species are attracted to and can evolve to fill niche vacancies, and in doing so can acquire a range of forms that would at least be in part predictable from a study of the vacancy.” Nevertheless, the number of niches must be limited, because onvergence and orthoselection occur in evolution and must be the result of the limited number of ‘Platonic moulds’. “However it is not the quality of the environment that is necessarily provoking the adaptation, it is indeed the degree of competition which forces a species to specialize.”
Generally, according to Woodley, whereas the prevailing Darwinian view assumes that evolution is primarily driven by contingencies, the typological view holds that evolution in ecosystems is essentially deterministic and orthogenetic. Importantly also, Woodley believes that convergent forms occur because they are useful for the ecosystem.
Empirical evidence does not support the view that evolution has filled all possible niches. There has been an accumulation of taxa in the course of evolution to the Recent, and there is no evidence that this accumulation was accompanied by a corresponding compression of niches. ” Examining species diversity of various groups in ecosystems as diverse as marine benthos, insects of fern, or parasites of marine and freshwater fishes, the conclusion must be that ” considering the vast differences in diversity of similar habitats or hosts ” only a small proportion of potential niches is occupied, which makes it unlikely that interspecific competition is of such overriding importance as often assumed (see the recent discussion in Rohde 2005).
I conclude that ‘natural laws’ are indeed likely to exist in nature which force evolution into certain ‘moulds’, although it is doubtful that these moulds are constant and correspond to Plato’s archetypes. There is no substantial evidence which supports the view that adaptive radiation generally is a lawful process of lineage degeneration, from less to more specialized forms. There is much evidence in support of the view that niche space is largely empty; the term ‘vacant niche’ is appropriate and useful for drawing attention to this. Interspecific competition is probably not as important as often assumed. – Woodley’s claim that “convergent forms occur because they are useful for the ecosystem” is not supported by any evidence and it seems indeed highly unlikely that this suggestion can even in principle be supported by empirical evidence.
See also
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/01/31/vacant-niches/
and
https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/02/24/effective-evolutionary-time/
and
Food Web Theory Suggests Ecology May Be Governed By General Rules
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000309074625.htm
See https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/05/02/the-pillars-of-democracy-a-free-press/ for previous comments on this topic.
And read an interesting and funny article here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/05/media/index.html
You don’t publish outright false reports, but direct attention away from important matters to trivia, such as:
“Media critic” Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post today devoted pages of his column to Obama’s bowling and eating habits
“they yammer about Drudge-promoted gossip endlessly, and then insist that their own chattering is proof that it is an important story that people care about. And because they conclude that “people” (i.e., them) are concerned with the story, they keep chirping about it, which in turn fuels their belief that the story is important”
Glenn Greenwald was a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York, and is the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: “How Would a Patriot Act?” (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, and “A Tragic Legacy”. He has written a third book to be released shortly: Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.
I refer to an article by Gerard Wright in the Sydney Morning Herald April 7, 08 which discusses the subprime mortgage crisis and implications for the banks.
In the US, in 2006, there were 5.6 million households with mortgages with negative equity (that is, a mortgage higher than the value of the house). It is estimated that this will increase to 10.76 million by the end of the year and may even reach 20 million. Many families will be forced to leave their homes to banks and simply walk away. The social costs will be enormous.
What are the reasons?
According to Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in the US culture of the last 20 years the norm has been to rip off everything you can. He further says that the banking landscape will change. “You are talking about a large amount of defaults, way beyond any historical pattern”. Gerald Cassidy, a senior researcher with RBC Capital Markets, predicts 150 bank failures over the next three years.
Does all this require only minor adjustments, or is a complete change in our philosophical attitudes and in the economic paradigm (largely uncontrolled free market economy) underlying economic policy necessary? Not long ago the Soviet system was overthrown as a consequence of its rigid economic and political structures, which prevented any meaningful adjustments. Has the time come to throw overboard the laissez-faire economy with its emphasis on more and more growth, and, more generally, our economic greed: let’s get as much as possible, whether you need it or not? Sokrates said looking at items for sale: how many things there are which I don’t need.
Such a change would solve many of the environmental problems, which are usually little considered when calculating the costs of things.
For free market economy see also https://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2007/02/05/free-market-economy/
Peter Hille. Sein Leben
1854 to 1904. Versagte in der Schule, als Journalist und Begründer einer Theatergruppe. Sein Roman “Die Sozialisten” blieb ohne Resonanz. Nannte sich ein “Meerwunder an Erfolglosigkeit”. Verarmte völlig und wanderte durch einige europäische Länder, um schliesslich nach Berlin zurückzukehren, wo er nicht selten im Freien übernachtete. Kam schliesslich im Haus der “Neuen Gemeinschaft” unter. Wurde eine Kultfigur der Berliner Boheme. Gründete das “Cabaret zum Peter Hille”, wo er musikalisch-literarische Abende von hohem Niveau hielt. Verfasste unter anderem einige Romane und eine Tragödie. Befreundet mit einigen einflussreichen Schriftstellern.
1854 – 1904. Failed at school, as a journalist and founder of a theater group. His novel Die Sozialisten found no resonance. Consequently impoverished. Called himself a “Meerwunder an Erfolglosigkeit” (miracle of unsuccessfulness). Wandered in various European countries, before returning to Berlin, where he “ not infrequently – slept out of doors. Finally found a home in the house of the “Neue Gemeinschaft”. Became an iconic figure of the Berlin boheme. Founded the “Cabaret zum Peter Hille”, where he held musical-literary evenings of high standing. Wrote, among others, some novels and a tragedy. Friend of some influential writers.
Freiheit ist eine Summe mikroskopischer Unfreiheiten.
Freedom is a sum of microscopic non-freedoms.
Man kann auch hinauffallen. Und solche Fälle sind die tiefsten.
One can also fall upwards, and such falls (cases) are the deepest.
Was ein Streber werden will, krümmt sich beizeiten.
He who wants to become a geek (nerd), bends early.
Besser ein freier Teufel als ein gebundener Engel.
Better a free devil than a bound angel.
Das Weib ist ein vernünftiges Märchen.
Woman is a rational fairy tale.
Das Weib ist der Vater der Sorge.
Woman is the father of worry.
Das Weib ist Sonntag, der Mann Alltag.
Woman is Sunday, man is weekday.
Gottesfurcht ist Gotteslästerung.
Fear of God is blasphemy.
Es fällt kein Meister vom Himmel, wohl aber ein Himmel vom Meister.
No master falls from heaven, but a heaven may fall from a master.
Wagner: Richard der Grosse: nicht fort von ihm, aber eine Gegenhygiene ist für uns notwendig, eine Ergänzung des Lebens: Bach.
Wagner: Richard the Great: not away from him, but we need an antidote, a supplement of life: Bach.
Quelle (source): Projekt Gutenberg, Der Spiegel, Uebersetzungen von mir (my translations)
I am frequently receiving requests for information about my work on latitudinal gradients in species diversity, reproductive strategies and latitudinal ranges. To make it easier to find my references on this work, I publish a list below. Abstracts of some of these papers can be found on my homepage http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~krohde, key publications.
Rohde, K. 1978. Latitudinal differences in species diversity and their causes. I. A review of the hypotheses explaining the gradients. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 97, 393-403.
Rohde, K. 1978. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity and their causes. II. Marine parasitological evidence for a time hypothesis. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 97, 405-418.
Rohde, K. 1978. Latitudinal differences in host specificity of marine Monogenea and Digenea. Marine Biology, 47, 125-134.
Rohde, K. 1985. Increased viviparity of marine parasites at high latitudes. Hydrobiologia, 127, 197-201.
Rohde, K., Heap, M. and Heap, D. 1993. Rapoport’s rule does not apply to marine teleosts and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species richness. American Naturalist, 142, 1-16.
Rohde, K. and Heap, M. 1996. Latitudinal ranges of teleost fish in the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans. American Naturalist, 147, 659-665.
Rohde, K. 1996. Rapoport’s Rule is a local phenomenon and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Biodiversity Letters, 3, 10-13.
Poulin, R. and Rohde, K. 1997. Comparing the richness of metazoan ectoparasite communities of marine fishes: controlling for host phylogeny. Oecologia, 110, 278-283.
Rohde, K. 1997. The larger area of the tropics does not explain latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Oikos, 79, 169-172.
Rohde, K. and Heap, M. 1998. Latitudinal differences in species and community richness and in community structure of metazoan endo- and ectoparasites of marine teleost fish. International Journal for Parasitology, 28, 461-474.
Rohde, K. 1998. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Area matters, but how much? Oikos, 82, 184-190.
Rohde, K. 1999. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity and Rapoport’s rule revisited: a review of recent work, and what can parasites teach us about the causes of the gradients? Ecography, 22, 593-613 (invited Minireview on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Nordic Ecological Society Oikos). Also published in Fenchel, T. ed.: Ecology 1999-and tomorrow, pp. 73-93. Oikos Editorial Office, University Lund, Sweden.
Rohde, K. 2002. Ecology and biogeography of marine parasites. Advances in Marine Biology, 43, 1-86.
Rohde, K. 2005. Latitudinal, longitudinal and depth gradients. In: K.Rohde (ed.). Marine Parasitology. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne and CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, 348-351, 526-527.
Rohde, K. 2005. Eine neue Ökologie. Aktuelle Probleme der evolutionären Ökologie. Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, 58, 420-426.
Rohde, K. and Stauffer, D. 2005. Simulation of geographical trends in Chowdhury ecosystem model. Advances in Complex Systems 8, 451-464.
Rohde, K. 2005. Nonequilibrium Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 223 pp. ISBN 052 1854 34.
Stauffer, D and. Rohde, K. 2006. Simulation of Rapoport’s rule for latitudinal species spread. Theory in Biosciences 125, 55-65.
Stauffer, D., Schulze, C. and Rohde, K. 2007. Habitat width along a latitudinal gradient. Vie et Milieu 57, 181-187.
Josef Alvermann, Baden-Baden, hat mir eine Auslese von Zitaten Marie von Ebner-Eschenbachs geschickt. Hier sind einige dieser Zitate. Uebersetzungen von mir.
Josef Alvermann, Baden-Baden, has sent me a collection of quotations from Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach. Some of them are shown below. Translations by me.
Such dich nicht von einem unbegründeten Verdacht zu reinigen; es ist entweder überflüssig oder vergeblich.
Do not try to protect yourself against an unjustified suspicion; it is either superfluous or in vain.
Viele Leute glauben, wenn sie einen Fehler erst eingestanden haben, brauchen sie ihn nicht mehr abzulegen.
Many people believe that, if they have admitted a mistake, they don’t have to correct it.
Es gibt eine nähere Verwandtschaft als die zwischen Mutter und Kind: die zwischen Künstler und seinem Werke.
There exists a closer relationship than that between mother and child: the one between artist and his creation.
Die Kunst ist im Niedergang begriffen, die sich von der Darstellung der Leidenschaft zu der des Lasters wendet.
Art which turns from the representation of passion to that of vice, is on the way down.
Die Moral die gut genug war für unsere Väter, ist nicht gut genug für unsere Kinder.
The morals which were good enough for our fathers, are not good enough for our children.
Nichts macht uns feiger und gewissenloser als der Wunsch, von allen Menschen geliebt zu werden.
Nothing makes us more cowardly and unprincipled (conscienceless) than the wish to be loved by all people.
Wo wäre die Macht der Frauen, wenn die Eitelkeit der Männer nicht wäre?
Where would the power of women be without the vanity of men?
Nur der Starke kann verzeihen, der Schwächling wird immer nachtragen.
Only the strong can forgive, the weakling will always carry a grudge.
Die glücklichen Sklaven sind die erbittersten Feinde der Freiheit.
Happy slaves are the most bitter enemies of freedom.
Der Weise ist selten klug.
The wise person is rarely clever.
Eine gescheite Frau hat Millionen geborener Feinde:- alle dummen Männer.
A brainy woman has millions of born enemies:- all stupid men.
