The term “ Social Darwinism “ has been used to describe scenarios where laissez-faire economic systems allow only the “ fittest to survive “. The term is one of the stupidest misnomers ever invented, of course. Darwinism and the survival of the fittest in the biological context refer to the survival value of traits. And it is based on a mechanism of genetic inheritance, and a complex and slow process of natural selection of genetic variations that help cope with the natural environment better. The basic characteristic of this mechanism is that individuals with genetic constitution that helps cope with the environment better will pass on these positive traits to their off-springs.
“ Social Darwinism “, as opposed to a system of socialism, for example, refers to a scenario where no one who is economically unviable is allowed to persist, that is, no welfare system is allowed to come to the aid of “ weak “ individuals. Of course, there are huge problems with this point of view. Is a person who is “ economically unviable “ now likely to remain “ economically unviable “ always ? It also has relevance for contemporary debates about poverty. If a man is starving, or if a penniless man has malaria, and he will die if food or treatment don’t reach him, he is clearly economically unviable. If a well-to-do person helps him by giving him food and medicine, he becomes economically viable. He can even become a contributor to overall prosperity because of division of labor. In other words, the person who helps the starving guy does not necessarily harm his own economic interests. The analysis can be extended to a person who is not exactly destitute, but has fallen on bad days. Then the concept of “ Social Darwinism “ becomes even more untenable. The basic failure is one of comprehending the dynamic nature of economic viability.
There is another problem with “ Social Darwinism “ as a way of ordering human society. “ Social Darwinism “, in its purest manifestation, would lead to an elimination of the public school system and of subsidized education. Since school education is a significant component that decides what kind of jobs an individual gets, the presence or absence of a public education system will have a huge impact on the allocation of labor and talent that the society ends up with. And in the absence of a publicly funded education system, mostly kids from rich families will end up getting the better jobs. This labor and talent allocation may or may not suffice to keep economic prosperity going. Even if it does, it calls into question the internal consistency of the system since it can and will lead to “ elimination “ of individuals who are economically more viable while several who are economically less viable will survive. This may be a sustainable system if resources are plentiful and economic management is a trivial science. However, till now, mankind hasn’t enjoyed that kind of economic security. So, in practice, “ Social Darwinism “, if taken to its logical conclusion while allowing for inheritance and parent-funded ( but no public ) education, can and most probably will lead to a process of obsolescence wherein mankind’s survival itself may be imperiled. And, the other problem is that in that kind of scenario, full employment or a universal security net would be easily affordable. Persisting with “ Social Darwinist “ methods in that kind of society is equivalent to unadulterated sadism.
The term “ Social Darwinism “ should be banished from intelligent discourse. If “ Social Darwinism “ is used to refer to individuals alone with no reference to off-springs, then the Darwinist part makes no sense, apart from a resemblance to the ability of organisms to cope with their environments. If it does refer to things like inheritance, parent-funded education and the absence of publicly funded education, then also, the Darwinian part makes no sense. In the latter case, it simply means - if my dad is a winner, and I don’t piss him off, I am a winner if inheritance taxes are low enough. Or if my dad has connections in the right places, I become a winner. One may be able to call that Social Nepotism, not Social Darwinism.
The Global Analyst ( Commentary about economic, environmental, political and other topics )
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The sequencing error
It is fashionable in countries like India to blame socialist policies for what are commonly categorized as “inefficiencies”. And there is a plethora of superficial advertising out there that tries to create the impression that since the onset of neoliberal policies starting in the early 1990s, things have mostly been rosy for India. And similarly, there is a lot of analysis that tries to make it seem that all of China’s progress since the early 1980s is due to the adoption of capitalism. For example, commentary in magazines and newspapers like the Wall Street Journal abound in such superficial analysis.
In fact, in the case of India, not only is this a gross distortion of the truth, it completely mischaracterizes the reality. If you look at basic indicators of progress like poverty rates, literacy rates and the human development index, very little has changed as far as rates of amelioration go since the liberalization policies started. The neoliberal phase of the last nearly twenty years can’t escape the responsibility for the gargantuan failures in the areas of human development during this time. It can’t be allowed to take credit for a lop-sided growth that favors the super-wealthy while trickle-down brings scant relief to the destitute masses at the bottom.
In the same way, the “ socialist “ policies of post-independent India from independence in 1947 till the beginning of the neoliberal phase can’t be blamed for all of India’s failures till then, and not be given credit for the good things that happened during that time, and since then. After all, the superstructure on which the recent lop-sided high-growth phase and the recent spurt in exports in fields like software are based was created by the “ socialist “ framework of the past. This eagerness on the part of proponents of laissez-faire to forget the contribution of the “ socialist “ phase to later growth has been characterized by one Indian politician as “ the vulgar kicking of the ladder “. After all, recent mushrooming of private engineering colleges offering software degrees notwithstanding, the scientific and technical pool from which the Indian software companies drew their talent were to a large extent from government-run and highly subsidized engineering colleges. These colleges, whatever their defects may be, were necessary in order to identify, train and promote engineering talent from a broad pool, irrespective of economic status. How can the successes of the Indian software companies and their contribution to India’s foreign exchange security be ascribed purely to laissez-faire policies when “ socialist “ policies regarding education helped identify and train a broad talent pool for them ?
The other aspect that seems to get missed is that “ socialism “ can’t be blamed for those ills of post-independent India where it hasn’t had a chance to function. In many ways, “ socialism “ in India was a “ socialism for the relatively rich “ and “ socialism for the urbanites “. Rural development was ignored to a large extent while entrenched power groups jostled for political influence. You can’t blame socialism for the economic travails of rural India when the kind of socialism India practiced wasn’t designed to bring rapid development in rural areas.
Opinions can be divided as to how much of post-1980s China is capitalistic and how much of it is socialistic. After all, a country’s export sector doesn’t necessarily typify its economy. Government-owned companies have played and still play a pivotal role in the functioning of the Chinese economy. Also, just like in India, China’s success in the export sector cannot be disentangled from the communist regime’s policies in the fields of poverty, health and education. A near-universal literacy rate by the early 1980s cannot possibly be brushed aside when it comes to analyzing China’s subsequent economic successes. Commentators like Amartya Sen have made this argument for countries like Taiwan and South Korea, which reached high levels of literacy under dictatorial regimes before their growths sky-rocketed. What applies for dictatorial capitalist regimes also applies to dictatorial communist regimes when it comes to education and health serving as a basis for subsequent growth.
The basic error in many of these analyses is that too much emphasis is placed on systems, and too little emphasis is placed on “ stages of development “. This is especially true of developing countries, and analyses that take a parochial view that systems matter way more than stages of development will inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions.
In fact, in the case of India, not only is this a gross distortion of the truth, it completely mischaracterizes the reality. If you look at basic indicators of progress like poverty rates, literacy rates and the human development index, very little has changed as far as rates of amelioration go since the liberalization policies started. The neoliberal phase of the last nearly twenty years can’t escape the responsibility for the gargantuan failures in the areas of human development during this time. It can’t be allowed to take credit for a lop-sided growth that favors the super-wealthy while trickle-down brings scant relief to the destitute masses at the bottom.
In the same way, the “ socialist “ policies of post-independent India from independence in 1947 till the beginning of the neoliberal phase can’t be blamed for all of India’s failures till then, and not be given credit for the good things that happened during that time, and since then. After all, the superstructure on which the recent lop-sided high-growth phase and the recent spurt in exports in fields like software are based was created by the “ socialist “ framework of the past. This eagerness on the part of proponents of laissez-faire to forget the contribution of the “ socialist “ phase to later growth has been characterized by one Indian politician as “ the vulgar kicking of the ladder “. After all, recent mushrooming of private engineering colleges offering software degrees notwithstanding, the scientific and technical pool from which the Indian software companies drew their talent were to a large extent from government-run and highly subsidized engineering colleges. These colleges, whatever their defects may be, were necessary in order to identify, train and promote engineering talent from a broad pool, irrespective of economic status. How can the successes of the Indian software companies and their contribution to India’s foreign exchange security be ascribed purely to laissez-faire policies when “ socialist “ policies regarding education helped identify and train a broad talent pool for them ?
The other aspect that seems to get missed is that “ socialism “ can’t be blamed for those ills of post-independent India where it hasn’t had a chance to function. In many ways, “ socialism “ in India was a “ socialism for the relatively rich “ and “ socialism for the urbanites “. Rural development was ignored to a large extent while entrenched power groups jostled for political influence. You can’t blame socialism for the economic travails of rural India when the kind of socialism India practiced wasn’t designed to bring rapid development in rural areas.
Opinions can be divided as to how much of post-1980s China is capitalistic and how much of it is socialistic. After all, a country’s export sector doesn’t necessarily typify its economy. Government-owned companies have played and still play a pivotal role in the functioning of the Chinese economy. Also, just like in India, China’s success in the export sector cannot be disentangled from the communist regime’s policies in the fields of poverty, health and education. A near-universal literacy rate by the early 1980s cannot possibly be brushed aside when it comes to analyzing China’s subsequent economic successes. Commentators like Amartya Sen have made this argument for countries like Taiwan and South Korea, which reached high levels of literacy under dictatorial regimes before their growths sky-rocketed. What applies for dictatorial capitalist regimes also applies to dictatorial communist regimes when it comes to education and health serving as a basis for subsequent growth.
The basic error in many of these analyses is that too much emphasis is placed on systems, and too little emphasis is placed on “ stages of development “. This is especially true of developing countries, and analyses that take a parochial view that systems matter way more than stages of development will inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions.
The easy moral problem ?
Easy moral problem – You have money, a person is hungry and asks you for money for food. I have categorized this problem as an easy moral problem because to me, it seems like a no-brainer. After all, ostensibly, there is sufficient food production for all of the world’s population of nearly 7 billion. If everyone who has money gives enough to those who can’t afford food, it should be a reasonably easy distribution problem to solve, barring some logistical problems having to do with transporting food around the world, responding to famines etc. Also, there are the examples of developed countries that have eliminated poverty.
However, it isn’t clear if at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the majority of mankind sees the last problem as an easy moral problem. In fact, mankind seems almost hopelessly lost when it comes to this problem. Six million kids die every year from preventable causes like minor diseases and malnutrition. Billions live at the edge of poverty, barely eking out a living, and not getting sufficient nutrition.
There are several reasons why this state of affairs continues. There is paranoia about “growth” and “efficiency”. One argument of the paranoids could go like this. If there is too much charity for food, a large proportion of the working population will stop working. Growth will suffer and the economy will contract. There will be less money overall, and taken to its logical conclusion, it will lead to starvation for everybody. This extreme argument is wrong because of very simple economic efficiency reasons, and also simply because it doesn’t make sense.
Another argument could go as follows. Capitalistic enterprises are efficient. Anything not driven by the profit motive, like a charity, is inefficient. Therefore, I won’t give money to charities. Sounds okay ? It may sound okay for some charities, but it is untenable when it comes to something as basic as food.
Yet another argument could go like this. I don’t know if charitable organizations and NGOs are honest. I would rather spend my money on an expensive luxury item. At least I know that I am giving it to somebody honest, that is, the store owner. This argument fails both because it is dumb and because there are reasonable number of high-profile and reputable charities and NGOs like the World Food Program that work to provide food to the poor.
The other reason may have to do with paranoia about economic competition and the way it can affect one’s progenies. If those living at the edge of poverty are given too much help, they will become competitors for jobs. This argument could be especially potent in resource-strapped countries like India. If the size of the pie isn’t increasing fast, the privileged may think it’s not a good idea that the poor should come up too fast. Even if the size of the pie is increasing fast due to high growth at the top, the privileged may again think it’s a good idea to not empower the poor because they can pose a threat by competing for jobs at the top. Of course, this argument works for things like education, but not for food. However, in people’s minds, the problems of educating the poor, feeding the poor and healing the poor become bundled into one problem – that of caring for the poor, and thereby empowering them. So, even something as basic as food security may get neglected. This line of thinking takes a very cynical view of the way people think, but there are enough reports that it operates at many levels. For example, higher castes do their utmost to keep the lower castes poor in many villages in India, according to reports in the media.
The other reason may have to do with an “ out of sight, out of mind “ kind of thing. The vast majority of the well-to-do population thinks it is the responsibility of the government to ensure minimum standards of living for the poor. However, the political establishments that run the government may not have it in their priority list. This becomes especially significant when the number of poor is large, but forms a minority. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith analyzed this problem of minority poor. If the bottom 30% are poor, they don’t form enough of a vote bank to threaten reactionary establishments, especially if they aren’t well-organized and are uneducated, and are divided along lines like religion and caste in a country like India. The problem with the “ out of sight, out of mind “ thing is that while it may or may not absolve the vast majority of the well-to-do, it definitely doesn’t absolve the intelligentsia and the political elite. In the modern world, the uplift of the poor is ultimately the responsibility of the educated elite, and that too, primarily that of those who analyze and frame policies. If this elite is lazy, apathetic or stupid, the emancipation of the poor happens very slowly.
The “ out of sight, out of mind “ mechanism plays a very important role when it comes to the problem of getting rich countries to help poor countries that are very much cash-strapped and resource strapped, and caught in vicious cycles. For example, while President George W. Bush made a commitment that the US will contribute 0.7% of its annual GDP to the Millenium Development goals, the actual sum has never materialized because Congessional budget allocations are caught in massive wranglings about domestic spending, and voters are impatient about results at home first before they worry about foreign countries. But a large portion of the same population may support expensive wars in foreign countries based on justifications like “ spreading democracy “ or “ protecting democracy “. Somehow, poverty isn’t glamorous enough to make it to the top of the concern list.
Another example of the “ out of sight, out of mind “ mechanism is the burning of grains in North American prairies while people starved elsewhere in the world. This kind of co-operative efforts designed to raise food-grain prices have happened in the past. Instead of burning the grains, they could have been contributed to some kind of food security fund ( may be one run by the United Nations ) that gave food to starving people in remote areas of the world, basically ensuring moral outcomes while allowing the farmers in rich countries to avoid economic losses. However, widespread apathy and insouciance meant that destruction of this basic necessity of life was the outcome rather than the more humane option of transfer of food-grains to the utterly poor.
Yet another example of the “ out of sight, out of mind “ mechanism is the large-scale diversion of food-grains towards alcohol for automobile fuels. Since food-grains serve as close substitutes for each other, this leads to an increase in food prices worldwide. People at the edge of poverty are pushed further into poverty, and starvation becomes more widespread. There is an almost blind belief in the ability of markets to bring benefits to all. Basic common-sense moral problems like alleviation of mass starvation remain neglected.
There is another strange strand of thinking that asserts that only free-market capitalism and trickle-through can solve the problems of poverty, even in disease-ridden and starvation-ridden countries. This makes no sense, of course, since people that are suffering from malaria and AIDS, and people that are grossly malnourished, are not and cannot be meaningful parts of any kind of economy, let alone capitalism, till these fundamental problems are taken care of. However, this line of thinking provides a convenient intellectual cover for people that want to prevent egalitarian measures out of selfishness or sadism.
So, the moral problem of alleviation of starvation and malnutrition is, de facto, a difficult problem to solve in the world we inhabit ( although some countries have a much better record in this area than others ). At first blush, it looks like a slam dunk, but the record of countries like India, which haven’t been able to make good progress in this area over the past 60 years, shows that it is a much more intractable problem than what one would naively expect. The one strong conclusion that emerges from this is that selfishness and hypocrisy trump more humane instincts in human affairs to an extent that should be distasteful to civilized society.
However, it isn’t clear if at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the majority of mankind sees the last problem as an easy moral problem. In fact, mankind seems almost hopelessly lost when it comes to this problem. Six million kids die every year from preventable causes like minor diseases and malnutrition. Billions live at the edge of poverty, barely eking out a living, and not getting sufficient nutrition.
There are several reasons why this state of affairs continues. There is paranoia about “growth” and “efficiency”. One argument of the paranoids could go like this. If there is too much charity for food, a large proportion of the working population will stop working. Growth will suffer and the economy will contract. There will be less money overall, and taken to its logical conclusion, it will lead to starvation for everybody. This extreme argument is wrong because of very simple economic efficiency reasons, and also simply because it doesn’t make sense.
Another argument could go as follows. Capitalistic enterprises are efficient. Anything not driven by the profit motive, like a charity, is inefficient. Therefore, I won’t give money to charities. Sounds okay ? It may sound okay for some charities, but it is untenable when it comes to something as basic as food.
Yet another argument could go like this. I don’t know if charitable organizations and NGOs are honest. I would rather spend my money on an expensive luxury item. At least I know that I am giving it to somebody honest, that is, the store owner. This argument fails both because it is dumb and because there are reasonable number of high-profile and reputable charities and NGOs like the World Food Program that work to provide food to the poor.
The other reason may have to do with paranoia about economic competition and the way it can affect one’s progenies. If those living at the edge of poverty are given too much help, they will become competitors for jobs. This argument could be especially potent in resource-strapped countries like India. If the size of the pie isn’t increasing fast, the privileged may think it’s not a good idea that the poor should come up too fast. Even if the size of the pie is increasing fast due to high growth at the top, the privileged may again think it’s a good idea to not empower the poor because they can pose a threat by competing for jobs at the top. Of course, this argument works for things like education, but not for food. However, in people’s minds, the problems of educating the poor, feeding the poor and healing the poor become bundled into one problem – that of caring for the poor, and thereby empowering them. So, even something as basic as food security may get neglected. This line of thinking takes a very cynical view of the way people think, but there are enough reports that it operates at many levels. For example, higher castes do their utmost to keep the lower castes poor in many villages in India, according to reports in the media.
The other reason may have to do with an “ out of sight, out of mind “ kind of thing. The vast majority of the well-to-do population thinks it is the responsibility of the government to ensure minimum standards of living for the poor. However, the political establishments that run the government may not have it in their priority list. This becomes especially significant when the number of poor is large, but forms a minority. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith analyzed this problem of minority poor. If the bottom 30% are poor, they don’t form enough of a vote bank to threaten reactionary establishments, especially if they aren’t well-organized and are uneducated, and are divided along lines like religion and caste in a country like India. The problem with the “ out of sight, out of mind “ thing is that while it may or may not absolve the vast majority of the well-to-do, it definitely doesn’t absolve the intelligentsia and the political elite. In the modern world, the uplift of the poor is ultimately the responsibility of the educated elite, and that too, primarily that of those who analyze and frame policies. If this elite is lazy, apathetic or stupid, the emancipation of the poor happens very slowly.
The “ out of sight, out of mind “ mechanism plays a very important role when it comes to the problem of getting rich countries to help poor countries that are very much cash-strapped and resource strapped, and caught in vicious cycles. For example, while President George W. Bush made a commitment that the US will contribute 0.7% of its annual GDP to the Millenium Development goals, the actual sum has never materialized because Congessional budget allocations are caught in massive wranglings about domestic spending, and voters are impatient about results at home first before they worry about foreign countries. But a large portion of the same population may support expensive wars in foreign countries based on justifications like “ spreading democracy “ or “ protecting democracy “. Somehow, poverty isn’t glamorous enough to make it to the top of the concern list.
Another example of the “ out of sight, out of mind “ mechanism is the burning of grains in North American prairies while people starved elsewhere in the world. This kind of co-operative efforts designed to raise food-grain prices have happened in the past. Instead of burning the grains, they could have been contributed to some kind of food security fund ( may be one run by the United Nations ) that gave food to starving people in remote areas of the world, basically ensuring moral outcomes while allowing the farmers in rich countries to avoid economic losses. However, widespread apathy and insouciance meant that destruction of this basic necessity of life was the outcome rather than the more humane option of transfer of food-grains to the utterly poor.
Yet another example of the “ out of sight, out of mind “ mechanism is the large-scale diversion of food-grains towards alcohol for automobile fuels. Since food-grains serve as close substitutes for each other, this leads to an increase in food prices worldwide. People at the edge of poverty are pushed further into poverty, and starvation becomes more widespread. There is an almost blind belief in the ability of markets to bring benefits to all. Basic common-sense moral problems like alleviation of mass starvation remain neglected.
There is another strange strand of thinking that asserts that only free-market capitalism and trickle-through can solve the problems of poverty, even in disease-ridden and starvation-ridden countries. This makes no sense, of course, since people that are suffering from malaria and AIDS, and people that are grossly malnourished, are not and cannot be meaningful parts of any kind of economy, let alone capitalism, till these fundamental problems are taken care of. However, this line of thinking provides a convenient intellectual cover for people that want to prevent egalitarian measures out of selfishness or sadism.
So, the moral problem of alleviation of starvation and malnutrition is, de facto, a difficult problem to solve in the world we inhabit ( although some countries have a much better record in this area than others ). At first blush, it looks like a slam dunk, but the record of countries like India, which haven’t been able to make good progress in this area over the past 60 years, shows that it is a much more intractable problem than what one would naively expect. The one strong conclusion that emerges from this is that selfishness and hypocrisy trump more humane instincts in human affairs to an extent that should be distasteful to civilized society.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
New study about Himalayan glaciers
Okay, so there is a new study out ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/328/5984/1382.pdf?ijkey=PdRTX0ybYaIjY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci ) that says that the Himalayan glacier recession scenario isn't as scary as the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report projected ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html ). That report's projection was based on research that wasn't peer-reviewed, according to an article in New Scientist. The IPCC 2007 report stated that Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers are likely to disappear by 2035. The new study, which appears in the journal Science, tries to establish two things. One, that the rate of recession isn't as scary as the 2007 IPCC report suggested. The other is that the rivers with higher ratio of snow and glacier upstream discharge to downstream natural discharge will see a bigger effect on irrigation capabilities, ability to sustain agriculture etc. The final conclusion - the Indus and the Brahmaputra basins will feel the most negative impact on the ability to sustain populations. The Ganges basin and the Yangtze and Yellow river basins won't see as severe an impact.
Since the scientist who authored the non-peer-reviewed article started this all-important debate, he deserves a special word of thanks from the scientific community and the human community. The IPCC deserves credit for being bold enough to highlight this critical issue using whatever data was available. I haven't read the apology from IPCC for using this article as the basis of its claims, but I don't understand what there was to apologize for in the first place. Climate change is an inexact science, and as the only scientific work that dealt with this issue at this crucial juncture in human history, it couldn't possibly have been ignored.
What should the implications of the new study be for environmental policy, agricultural policy, water supply infrastructure policy etc ? I am not sure that anything changes. Do we really want to take the assurances of this new paper literally ? The study projects up to 2050. So, what happens between 2050 and 2100 ? There is no guarantee that temperature stabilization goals from the Copenhagen thing can be achieved by 2050 given the voracious appetite for growth in developing countries and the sloth-like pace of progress in climate change legislation in countries like the United States. If the stabilization goals aren't achieved, we should be looking forward to 2100 for worst-case scenarios regarding reduced river flows. Don't genetically modified crops require more irrigation water to work ? The neo-liberal line of thinking will say that growth is the only answer. Basically, growth is the answer to everything. But growth for whom and what kind of growth ? It has already been revealed over the last 15 years that high growth rates have done little to accelerate poverty reduction rates in India. It would be foolhardy to expect that growth as we know it in India will be able to deal with challenges of this magnitude that are local in nature, and that involve poor populations whose weighted-average contribution to India's GDP growth hasn't been as high as the overall GDP growth ( exception must be made here about rich Punjabi farmers who are well-integrated into the global economy, but even they will face difficulties if flow rates in the tributaries of the Indus decrease substantially.The new study doesn't say anything about the tributaries of the Indus ). Since the rivers can't sustain so much population relying on agriculture, they need to be sucked into the trajectory of either industrial or service sector growth. The sad thing is that India's elitist growth model offers little hope that this will happen. In many ways then, these populations in the river basins will be left at the mercy of nature, and if the past is any indication, the urban population will treat this issue with benign neglect. Unless, of course, these changes lead to extreme food scarcity situations. In which case the urban population, given its past cynical approach, will try to maintain food security for itself while offering the bare minimum or even less to the beleaguered agricultural population. In extreme scenarios, the attendant rise in poverty rates may even lead to concentration of agricultural lands in the hands of a few, despite the stated goals of land redistribution and economic equity.
A projection up to 2100 for different cases will be useful, like Copenhagen-implemented and Copenhagen-not-implemented. I don't think policy-wise, the reassurances of this paper matter much. The fact still remains that large populations that rely directly on rivers for their livelihood will be extremely vulnerable over the next several decades. And even the urbanites who are shielded from the direct impacts may experience hardships due to things like reduced hydroelectricity generation, food insecurity and the need to provide a modicum of economic security to the poor rural population. What the paper tries to argue is that armageddon isn't here. But, it does nothing to allay fears of economic distress.
Since the scientist who authored the non-peer-reviewed article started this all-important debate, he deserves a special word of thanks from the scientific community and the human community. The IPCC deserves credit for being bold enough to highlight this critical issue using whatever data was available. I haven't read the apology from IPCC for using this article as the basis of its claims, but I don't understand what there was to apologize for in the first place. Climate change is an inexact science, and as the only scientific work that dealt with this issue at this crucial juncture in human history, it couldn't possibly have been ignored.
What should the implications of the new study be for environmental policy, agricultural policy, water supply infrastructure policy etc ? I am not sure that anything changes. Do we really want to take the assurances of this new paper literally ? The study projects up to 2050. So, what happens between 2050 and 2100 ? There is no guarantee that temperature stabilization goals from the Copenhagen thing can be achieved by 2050 given the voracious appetite for growth in developing countries and the sloth-like pace of progress in climate change legislation in countries like the United States. If the stabilization goals aren't achieved, we should be looking forward to 2100 for worst-case scenarios regarding reduced river flows. Don't genetically modified crops require more irrigation water to work ? The neo-liberal line of thinking will say that growth is the only answer. Basically, growth is the answer to everything. But growth for whom and what kind of growth ? It has already been revealed over the last 15 years that high growth rates have done little to accelerate poverty reduction rates in India. It would be foolhardy to expect that growth as we know it in India will be able to deal with challenges of this magnitude that are local in nature, and that involve poor populations whose weighted-average contribution to India's GDP growth hasn't been as high as the overall GDP growth ( exception must be made here about rich Punjabi farmers who are well-integrated into the global economy, but even they will face difficulties if flow rates in the tributaries of the Indus decrease substantially.The new study doesn't say anything about the tributaries of the Indus ). Since the rivers can't sustain so much population relying on agriculture, they need to be sucked into the trajectory of either industrial or service sector growth. The sad thing is that India's elitist growth model offers little hope that this will happen. In many ways then, these populations in the river basins will be left at the mercy of nature, and if the past is any indication, the urban population will treat this issue with benign neglect. Unless, of course, these changes lead to extreme food scarcity situations. In which case the urban population, given its past cynical approach, will try to maintain food security for itself while offering the bare minimum or even less to the beleaguered agricultural population. In extreme scenarios, the attendant rise in poverty rates may even lead to concentration of agricultural lands in the hands of a few, despite the stated goals of land redistribution and economic equity.
A projection up to 2100 for different cases will be useful, like Copenhagen-implemented and Copenhagen-not-implemented. I don't think policy-wise, the reassurances of this paper matter much. The fact still remains that large populations that rely directly on rivers for their livelihood will be extremely vulnerable over the next several decades. And even the urbanites who are shielded from the direct impacts may experience hardships due to things like reduced hydroelectricity generation, food insecurity and the need to provide a modicum of economic security to the poor rural population. What the paper tries to argue is that armageddon isn't here. But, it does nothing to allay fears of economic distress.
A ridiculous method
A recent article on slate.com by Michael Levi discusses a paper that ostensibly establishes scientific credibility based on statistical analysis. Levi's article can be found at http://www.slate.com/id/2258088/. The paper, one published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, can be found at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html. The paper uses the number of articles written, number of citations etc as criteria to argue that climate skeptics are inferior scientists compared to climate change non-skeptics. And according to Levi's article, the White House tweeted a statement saying that this article proves that " climate skeptics " aren't " cream of crop ".
Make no mistake. I believe in anthropogenically caused climate change. I believe in it strongly, almost irrevocably. But what this article describes is exactly the kind of thing we shouldn't be wasting time over. I tend towards the view that the number of publications can't be a criterion for " cream of crop " or whatever. An example of how the political elite is spending more time on playing the cheap blame game instead of solving our problems.If these scientists are fringe lunatics with no credibility, they couldn't possibly be the reason climate policy change was delayed, right ? And if they weren't important, the blame for the delay should lie elsewhere, right ? And the White House is achieving what exactly by using this questionable study to brand scientists ?
The publications of these scientists are out there, and the content of those publications can be criticized by the non-skeptics. This study is a huge waste of time.And in the future, if there is a scientific controversy, the credibility of the arguments should be judged how exactly ? How should it be judged 1 year after the controversy starts, and how should it be judged 5 years after the controversy starts ? Based on the number of papers ?
And who exactly from the White House stands behind the study which says that particular scientists aren't up to par ? The president himself ? The cabinet ? Is this method going to be standard from here on out when there is a new scientific controversy ? Is the Congress going to pass a censure motion against these scientists based purely on the number of papers they have published ? And whether the White House is or isn't up to par will be judged how exactly ? Employment numbers ? GDP growth ? Success in social welfare ? Or some looney statistical method that compares it to, say, the Johnson administration ?
There are other problems with this method. How can a group of scientists be branded as inferior ? Shouldn't this same analysis be carried out then at the level of individual scientists ? Should the career level of the scientist matter when you use this statistical analysis ? As you can see, this method is rife with contradictions. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences should take a hard look at this article, and the authors, who I think have revealed their utter ignorance of the way science works by writing this article, and pass either a vote of endorsement or a vote of censure about it, since the article has implications for all fields of scientific enquiry.
Albert Einstein was one of the few voices in the first half of the twentieth century against the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Einstein-Podowlsky-Rosen paradox is famous as an argument that was forwarded as an objection to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The vast majority of the physics establishment believed and still believes in the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. If the method sketched out by these PNAS article writers is applied to this debate, then Einstein may well need to be branded as a substandard thinker on quantum mechanics. Many think he was wrong about quantum mechanics, but few, if any, will brand him as a substandard thinker about quantum mechanics.
Another example comes to mind. The Big Bang versus the Steady State theory of cosmology was a hallowed debate of physics till it was settled in favor of the Big Bang theorists. I don't know the paper number distribution of these two groups of scientists, but the debate was settled based on logic and empirical evidence, not on the basis of the number of papers.
Should national groups and ethnic groups be judged by this method when it comes to scientific credibility in any subject ? Should the indicators used in this study be normalized to the size of the population of the group in that case ? For example, can the group " Indian climate scientists " be compared with the group " US climate scientists " using this method ? After normalizing for population ? If the method leads to the conclusion that one of these national or ethnic groups isn't " cream of crop " in a particular subject, does this mean that the publications of any scientist belonging to that nationality or ethnic group should be ignored ? This question can't be brushed aside that easily since the method uses number of papers and citations as a criterion. How do you know which kind of groups can be compared using this method ? One could argue that only groups on two sides of a scientific controversy should be compared using this method ? But why ? Why can't it be applied to compare any kinds of groups ? And to produce rankings of groups ?
And if I remember correctly, the non-skeptics themselves underestimated things like Antarctic ice melting. So, the " skeptics " were bigger underestimators than the " non-skeptics ". At the end of the day, looks like both groups underestimated the importance of something that affects human future so critically. So, how can the " skeptics " be singled out for criticism ? This is a ridiculous and utterly wrong method. It can't be used to establish scientific credibility.
Make no mistake. I believe in anthropogenically caused climate change. I believe in it strongly, almost irrevocably. But what this article describes is exactly the kind of thing we shouldn't be wasting time over. I tend towards the view that the number of publications can't be a criterion for " cream of crop " or whatever. An example of how the political elite is spending more time on playing the cheap blame game instead of solving our problems.If these scientists are fringe lunatics with no credibility, they couldn't possibly be the reason climate policy change was delayed, right ? And if they weren't important, the blame for the delay should lie elsewhere, right ? And the White House is achieving what exactly by using this questionable study to brand scientists ?
The publications of these scientists are out there, and the content of those publications can be criticized by the non-skeptics. This study is a huge waste of time.And in the future, if there is a scientific controversy, the credibility of the arguments should be judged how exactly ? How should it be judged 1 year after the controversy starts, and how should it be judged 5 years after the controversy starts ? Based on the number of papers ?
And who exactly from the White House stands behind the study which says that particular scientists aren't up to par ? The president himself ? The cabinet ? Is this method going to be standard from here on out when there is a new scientific controversy ? Is the Congress going to pass a censure motion against these scientists based purely on the number of papers they have published ? And whether the White House is or isn't up to par will be judged how exactly ? Employment numbers ? GDP growth ? Success in social welfare ? Or some looney statistical method that compares it to, say, the Johnson administration ?
There are other problems with this method. How can a group of scientists be branded as inferior ? Shouldn't this same analysis be carried out then at the level of individual scientists ? Should the career level of the scientist matter when you use this statistical analysis ? As you can see, this method is rife with contradictions. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences should take a hard look at this article, and the authors, who I think have revealed their utter ignorance of the way science works by writing this article, and pass either a vote of endorsement or a vote of censure about it, since the article has implications for all fields of scientific enquiry.
Albert Einstein was one of the few voices in the first half of the twentieth century against the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Einstein-Podowlsky-Rosen paradox is famous as an argument that was forwarded as an objection to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The vast majority of the physics establishment believed and still believes in the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. If the method sketched out by these PNAS article writers is applied to this debate, then Einstein may well need to be branded as a substandard thinker on quantum mechanics. Many think he was wrong about quantum mechanics, but few, if any, will brand him as a substandard thinker about quantum mechanics.
Another example comes to mind. The Big Bang versus the Steady State theory of cosmology was a hallowed debate of physics till it was settled in favor of the Big Bang theorists. I don't know the paper number distribution of these two groups of scientists, but the debate was settled based on logic and empirical evidence, not on the basis of the number of papers.
Should national groups and ethnic groups be judged by this method when it comes to scientific credibility in any subject ? Should the indicators used in this study be normalized to the size of the population of the group in that case ? For example, can the group " Indian climate scientists " be compared with the group " US climate scientists " using this method ? After normalizing for population ? If the method leads to the conclusion that one of these national or ethnic groups isn't " cream of crop " in a particular subject, does this mean that the publications of any scientist belonging to that nationality or ethnic group should be ignored ? This question can't be brushed aside that easily since the method uses number of papers and citations as a criterion. How do you know which kind of groups can be compared using this method ? One could argue that only groups on two sides of a scientific controversy should be compared using this method ? But why ? Why can't it be applied to compare any kinds of groups ? And to produce rankings of groups ?
And if I remember correctly, the non-skeptics themselves underestimated things like Antarctic ice melting. So, the " skeptics " were bigger underestimators than the " non-skeptics ". At the end of the day, looks like both groups underestimated the importance of something that affects human future so critically. So, how can the " skeptics " be singled out for criticism ? This is a ridiculous and utterly wrong method. It can't be used to establish scientific credibility.
India's foremost imperative
The Indian political mainstream does not tire of telling us that growth is our biggest imperative. And that Maoist violence is the biggest threat to India’s future. All this, of course, in a country where millions of kids die every year from preventable diseases and where staggering numbers of people hover at or under poverty levels. So, what’s the solution ? Growth ? But growth for what ? So that the top 300 million in the country gets sucked into the trajectory of elitist global economy at a rapid pace ?
A cursory glance at the history of the last 60 years of independent India shows that trickle-down does not work effectively in India as a means of economic progress. And the lack of initiative in population control and planning has overwhelmed the ability of trickle-down to better people’s lives in meaningful ways. Also, several socio-economic analyses by experts points to an unwillingness to undertake serious egalitarian initiatives on the part of the elite, and the hijacking of the democratic process by elitist power centers. There are more Indians below the poverty line in 2010 than there were Indians in 1947, when the Brits left India to God and to chaos, as Gandhi had once asked them to do ( they did it after partitioning India, while Gandhi had asked them to do it without partitioning India ).
Okay, so I am a person that sees the glass as half full. But, honestly, where is the ray of hope for the people at the bottom ? There are all kinds of optimistic brouhaha about how the growth rate of India’s tax revenues is outpacing even India’s GDP growth rate. A 14 percent tax revenue increase per year ( I think that’s the number I have heard, though I haven’t checked it ) should provide better options to the government to implement poverty alleviation measures. And the recent institution of programmes like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ( NREGS ) seems to point to a willingness on the part of the Indian elite to share some of the recent fruits of growth with the unfortunate at the bottom, especially those in rural areas. But the real failure is the inability to bring about development in rural areas. The ability of the NREGS to provide a sustainable path to self-dependence for the rural population is uncertain.
While the previous discussion dealt with the inability of the current growth paradigm in India to provide a sustainable path to a more prosperous life for many people, there is another ugly aspect of India’s growth story. And that’s the direct conflict between the needs of growth, and the displacement of tribals and farmers from their lands. I will try to deal with this difficult topic in another article. However, there is one aspect that is obvious. And that’s the apathy of the urban elite when it comes to development in tribal areas.
So India’s biggest imperative is not mere growth, but growth combined with intelligent planning and sacrifice on the part of the privileged classes so that the less privileged ones can be prepared to deal with the challenges of a modern economy. Since the privileged classes haven’t dealt with this challenge in the last 60 years, why should one be sanguine about the prospects for the future ?
A cursory glance at the history of the last 60 years of independent India shows that trickle-down does not work effectively in India as a means of economic progress. And the lack of initiative in population control and planning has overwhelmed the ability of trickle-down to better people’s lives in meaningful ways. Also, several socio-economic analyses by experts points to an unwillingness to undertake serious egalitarian initiatives on the part of the elite, and the hijacking of the democratic process by elitist power centers. There are more Indians below the poverty line in 2010 than there were Indians in 1947, when the Brits left India to God and to chaos, as Gandhi had once asked them to do ( they did it after partitioning India, while Gandhi had asked them to do it without partitioning India ).
Okay, so I am a person that sees the glass as half full. But, honestly, where is the ray of hope for the people at the bottom ? There are all kinds of optimistic brouhaha about how the growth rate of India’s tax revenues is outpacing even India’s GDP growth rate. A 14 percent tax revenue increase per year ( I think that’s the number I have heard, though I haven’t checked it ) should provide better options to the government to implement poverty alleviation measures. And the recent institution of programmes like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ( NREGS ) seems to point to a willingness on the part of the Indian elite to share some of the recent fruits of growth with the unfortunate at the bottom, especially those in rural areas. But the real failure is the inability to bring about development in rural areas. The ability of the NREGS to provide a sustainable path to self-dependence for the rural population is uncertain.
While the previous discussion dealt with the inability of the current growth paradigm in India to provide a sustainable path to a more prosperous life for many people, there is another ugly aspect of India’s growth story. And that’s the direct conflict between the needs of growth, and the displacement of tribals and farmers from their lands. I will try to deal with this difficult topic in another article. However, there is one aspect that is obvious. And that’s the apathy of the urban elite when it comes to development in tribal areas.
So India’s biggest imperative is not mere growth, but growth combined with intelligent planning and sacrifice on the part of the privileged classes so that the less privileged ones can be prepared to deal with the challenges of a modern economy. Since the privileged classes haven’t dealt with this challenge in the last 60 years, why should one be sanguine about the prospects for the future ?
The Kerry Lieberman bill
America lags dangerously behind Europe in its commitment to environmental goals. In fact, there is little consensus about the urgency or desirability of establishing an ethos of environmental responsibility in America. Not so long ago, in response to a question about gasoline, former President George W. Bush’s White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that there would be no compromise when it comes to the American lifestyle. By this he meant that President Bush would not broach any change in America’s reliance on automobiles, gasoline-based or not. That kind of intransigence has changed in recent days. However, the delay has been caused and the damage has been done. Whether or not history will remember Bush as the Nero of America’s environmental tragedy remains to be seen. The worst-case scenarios of global warming are scary. However, finally, many years after Europe seriously got down to addressing the environment-economics conundrum, Rip Van Winkle has awoken in Washington DC. The basic contours of the Kerry-Lieberman that deal with the future of America’s environmental policy have been unveiled. The Bill promises to reduce steadily the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions such that — ‘‘(1) in 2013, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 95.25 per 20 cent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005; ‘‘(2) in 2020, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 83 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005; ‘‘(3) in 2030, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 58 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005; and ‘‘(4) in 2050, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions does not exceed 17 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.
The instinctive reaction of this writer, an engineer by profession, is one of skepticism. In fact, since this is the first American Bill that I have studied in any great detail, I can’t escape the suspicion that American politicians, as a species, have a way of papering over crucial problems, and then leave for their golf vacations or their speedboat sprees, thinking that they have achieved something great. How exactly do senators Kerry and Lieberman propose to achieve these goals in a capitalistic economy like America ?
Before going into this question, let it be understood that Europe has achieved certain important goals within a capitalistic framework. But, there are crucial differences between America and Europe. Europe has an enthusiasm about government and governance, whether it comes to running a welfare system, or subsidizing new environmental technology. And Europe does not balk at establishing high tax rates to achieve these crucial social goals. On the other hand, a significant section of the American population believes in tax-cuts as a religion. The American government is being crushed under the weight of a budget deficit. Sustaining existing welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare is a challenge in itself in this fiscal scenario. The chances that the US government will have the necessary funds to bring about meaningful changes in the energy market through subsidies or loans to achieve ambitious environmental goals are low.
One way a capitalistic economy can be steered towards specific end-points is by subsidizing new technology, providing low-interest loans to specific infant industries etc. The other way is through regulations. The problem with regulations is that if you make them too restrictive, you run the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. If you make them too lax, they are useless. What is the right level of environmental regulations ? And that too over a 40 year period. Nobody knows.
As for subsidies, once again, what are the senators basing their projections on ? What level of subsidy will lead to what amount of investment in mitigation technologies or novel clean technologies ? How many small recessions and deep recessions will America see between now and 2050 ? How will you enthuse the private sector to invest heavily in environmental technology during these recessions ? Or do the senators think that the recent near heart-attack of the American economy is a one-time aberration that will not recur in the future ?
The senators need to explain to the public the basis of their assumptions when they project specific CO2 emission goals. And if it is a fact that these stated goals need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, as this writer suspects, then the senators need to come clean about that too. The last thing the American public needs from an underperforming political elite is false assurance.
The instinctive reaction of this writer, an engineer by profession, is one of skepticism. In fact, since this is the first American Bill that I have studied in any great detail, I can’t escape the suspicion that American politicians, as a species, have a way of papering over crucial problems, and then leave for their golf vacations or their speedboat sprees, thinking that they have achieved something great. How exactly do senators Kerry and Lieberman propose to achieve these goals in a capitalistic economy like America ?
Before going into this question, let it be understood that Europe has achieved certain important goals within a capitalistic framework. But, there are crucial differences between America and Europe. Europe has an enthusiasm about government and governance, whether it comes to running a welfare system, or subsidizing new environmental technology. And Europe does not balk at establishing high tax rates to achieve these crucial social goals. On the other hand, a significant section of the American population believes in tax-cuts as a religion. The American government is being crushed under the weight of a budget deficit. Sustaining existing welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare is a challenge in itself in this fiscal scenario. The chances that the US government will have the necessary funds to bring about meaningful changes in the energy market through subsidies or loans to achieve ambitious environmental goals are low.
One way a capitalistic economy can be steered towards specific end-points is by subsidizing new technology, providing low-interest loans to specific infant industries etc. The other way is through regulations. The problem with regulations is that if you make them too restrictive, you run the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. If you make them too lax, they are useless. What is the right level of environmental regulations ? And that too over a 40 year period. Nobody knows.
As for subsidies, once again, what are the senators basing their projections on ? What level of subsidy will lead to what amount of investment in mitigation technologies or novel clean technologies ? How many small recessions and deep recessions will America see between now and 2050 ? How will you enthuse the private sector to invest heavily in environmental technology during these recessions ? Or do the senators think that the recent near heart-attack of the American economy is a one-time aberration that will not recur in the future ?
The senators need to explain to the public the basis of their assumptions when they project specific CO2 emission goals. And if it is a fact that these stated goals need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, as this writer suspects, then the senators need to come clean about that too. The last thing the American public needs from an underperforming political elite is false assurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)