Hi, Bill --
I like it much better when you're reporting on what you know, which is
am impressive amount.
No but when (for example) I hear the "environmentalists" say
something like "If a person (company) can prove that their
production results in no environmental "damage" at all, only then
should they be permitted to proceed."
Proving a negative is very difficult, to say the least, and I basically
agree with you. My view, however, is a lot simpler than that of
"environmentalists" (and Earth-Firsters, and other such nut groups). I'm
bothered, for example, when I see the motocross races on TV, where a lot
of people on machines with knobby tires go roaring around the desert,
inflicting damage that will still be there 100 or 200 years from now. I
love the desert -- the way it is. What bothers me is _cumulative_
damage, _irreversible_ damage. This includes using up resources as if
the supply were still as endless as it was 100 years ago. I guess it's
the engineer in me that wants self-sustaining solutions to our problems,
a design such that could in principle work forever. Of course any such
design inevitably would have to include population stabilization, or
even better, reduction. But you get the idea -- a long-term solution
instead of just looking at the bottom line for the next quarter.
A living thing can not exist in its' environment without altering
that environment so the question then is, when is such alteration
"bad" or unacceptable? This is of course, a very difficult question
and one that has quite apparently been answered "incorrectly" more
than once.
I'd argue for defining it as bad when it can't be undone. That's the
appeal of the "renewable resources" idea for me. Of course there are
limits on that; we can't renew metal ore deposits and so on. But we can
certainly stretch things out until we can find new resources ( like on
the Moon, Mars, or the moons of Jupiter), and find ways to live our
luxurious lives without gobbling everything up so fast and making the
landscape rapidly uglier. I can't _make_ anybody agree with that sort of
vision (the way professional environmentalists seem to think they can),
but I can sure try to persuade people that it would be a nice idea to
stop messing things up and spending our capital.
Don't forget another basic law about living systems: no organism can
live in its own waste products.
There is always a problem when attempting to discuss these matters
related to "what do you call the condition where one or more
control systems overwhelm another". When someone holds a gun at my
head while making specific demands of me, you can claim that I am
still "controlling my own perceptions" but I think that you are
being absurd.
Not at all absurd. Can you suggest any OTHER way we can act? If someone
is holding a gun to your head, no matter what you do you are still going
to have to do it by controlling your own perceptions. You may not like
the choice you're being presented with, but nothing at all will happen
that you like if you don't make some decision about which perceptions to
control.
One shouldn't get hung up on examples that relate to one extreme
condition at one frozen instant of time. If the guy with the gun to your
head wants to continue controlling you, he's going to have to follow you
around with the gun as long as you live, or lock you up where you can't
get away, or just shoot you or let you starve to death. Nasty situation,
but that's how it is.
Some time ago, you said you were still having a problem with the idea
that there isn't any absolute right or wrong in PCT. I have to ask why
this bothers you. Or more to the point I could ask, how would we be
better off if there were an absolute standard of right and wrong?
One way might be that if a guy is holding a gun to your head, you could
tell him that what he's doing is wrong and prove it to him. Then he
would have to stop holding the gun to your head, wouldn't he? If he
_didn't_ stop, then you could conclude that this person is inherently
evil, a tool of Satan, and so forth. But of course he would still be
holding the gun to your head, and you would still have the same decision
to make as before.
To propose absolute good is to propose absolute evil. This is how God
and Satan were invented. But when it comes down to practical matters,
all you can actually do (other than offering sacrifices and prayers,
neither of which works very reliably) is to band together with others
who also claim to believe in absolute good and absolute evil (defined as
you define them), and enlist their aid in overcoming the opposite side.
So it all comes down to one group of control systems against another
group, which is where we would be anyway if nobody had ever thought of
the idea of absolute good and evil.
Even if there is a group that believes in exactly the same concept of
absolute right and wrong in which you believe, when you are there in the
lonely alley and a guy has a gun against your head you are still going
to have to decide what to do all by yourself. All the ideas in the world
about absolute right and wrong aren't going to make your situation any
different, or leave you with any choice except which perceptions to
control among those that remain available.
If you want an absolute standard of right and wrong, you're going to
have to get everyone else to agree with it, aren't you? You're going to
have to define it, give your reasons for supporting it, and meet
objections from others who would like to state it a little or a lot
differently. It isn't going to do you any good just to SAY that certain
things are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. If you're the only one
who thinks so, absolute right and wrong aren't going to have much
effect. In other words, you're going to have to persuade and negotiate,
or eliminate all those who don't agree. And how is that any different
from the way things are right now?
Majority rule is nothing more than formalized anarchy! We are a
constitutional republic for what was perceived as a very good
reason.
Well, I like to think things through for myself, not just accept the
word of guys who have been dead for 200 years (or who are living now).
Don't forget that these are the same guys who decided that women and
slaves shouldn't be allowed to vote. They put their pants on one leg at
a time just like I do, and their reasoning was no better than mine or
yours.
As you say, life is change. Maybe majority rule should be abolished,
along with taxes, laws, and law enforcement. Maybe the winner in an
election should be the one who gets the most votes from people earning
more than $500,000 per year, adjusted for inflation. Maybe there are
lots of things we should be doing differently. But who is saying
"should?" It's always SOMEBODY. What we come down to is people arguing
with each other about the system they want to see adopted, and doing
whatever they can think of that might swing the decision their way. In
the attempt to win, they're always thinking up irrefutable arguments
proving that logic, reason, and God are on their side. The only problem
is that the people on the other side(s) are doing the same thing.
Everybody wants to find some final authority that will settle the issues
once and for all, in a way that no human being can resist. Especially
when they aren't winning. It's very hard to accept that there's nobody
here but us chickens, and that we have to work it out among ourselves,
by ourselves. Even if there is a God, the evidence is that He's waiting
for us to do just that and has no intention of doing it for us.
···
------------------------------------
I personally am concerned that all "politicized science" soon fails
to be science as soon as it becomes a political issue. It seems as
you move "up" the scale from the field researcher and lab
scientists to the "project director", "department director",
"director of the lab", "media people", and finally "politicians"
(which if they are at the top then one can probably tell why I
quoted "up"), "objective truth" becomes less important until indeed
it has no importance at all. Politician's use the phrase
"Perception IS everything!" also but their reason for using it is
rather a bit different than yours.
I certainly agree with that.
The IEEE challenged the EPA
with the following assertions:
1) The original study upon whose conclusions the ban of PCB's was
based has never been successfully replicated.
2) The scientific community review of the original research
results indicated serious problems with the quality of the data
based upon such matters as both the unknown contribution to the
reported effects due to both known and unknown concentrations of
contaminating chemicals and some of the known contaminating
chemicals are "known carcinogens".
3) Toxicity and Carcinogenic research data (including human
exposure result studies) show that WITHOUT QUESTION that
replacement transformer oils are far more dangerous than the
original PCB containing oils.
The EPA responses were published and the "upshot" was that
basically the EPA representatives stated "so what?" and that they
were only concerned with what Congress mandated about PCB's.
Arguments like these become so complicated because basically they all
involve deciding which scientific results were obtained by objective and
impartial scientists, and which by scientists (or engineers) who were in
somebody's pocket. When somebody says that PCBs are a carcinogen, and
somebody else says that replacements are even more carcinogenic, how do
we decide whether any of these substances is a carcinogen, or worse than
any other carcinogen? Who gains by saying that they are, or are not? How
do we know that the statement that the PCB results have never been
replicated is true? Or false?
My problem with most advocate groups is that they report only data or
findings that support their position, and either neglect to report
anything that suggests otherwise, or try to impugn the integrity of
those who offer contrary results. This approach, of course, tends to
build up "overwhelming evidence" on one side, but it's a put-up job. The
other side can do exactly the same thing, and does.
The situation is just like two people watching a noise signal on an
oscilliscope, one person maintaining that the signal is really positive
and the other than it is really negative. Each one points to excursions
going its way, and claims that reports of excursions going the other way
are due to instrumental malfunctions or hidden manipulations by the
opponent, or ignores the other excursions entirely and instead cites the
opinion of authorities (absolutely to be trusted) who also believe that
such signals are inherently negative, or positive.
I've told this old Sufi story before, but:
Nasrudin is a judge in a criminal case. He listens as the prosecution
presents its case, and when it's done, he says "You know, I think you're
right!" Then the defense presents its case, and after it's done,
Nasrudin thinks long and deep and says "You know, I think you're right!"
A man in the audience leaps up in outrage, and says "But your honor,
they can't BOTH be right!" Nasrudin considers that, and replies,"You
know, I think you're right!"
Bill