double-ups of mailings
Gidday there futurework group I seem to be getting double-ups of most of the postyings from this group ... is anyone else getting the same problem? cheers vivian Hutchinson vivian Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 P.O.Box 428 New Plymouth, Taranaki, New Zealand visit The Jobs Research Website at http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/
Does The Public mean all of us, equally?
Does "The Public" mean all of us, equally? Keith Rankin, 24 January 1999 We have become accustomed to thinking of "the public" as a collective term for all of the people who make up a nation. Furthermore, as members of the public, we all belong equally to that collective entity. Pinning down the various interpretations of publicness is not easy, however. The identity of the public can change over time, and may, implicitly if not explicitly, vary from one member of a society to another. Who is the public that benefits from public policy? Citizens? State? Consumers? Each of these concepts can include all persons who together make a nation. The notion of consumers as the public is particularly problematic. While all of us may be consumers to some extent, clearly some of us (with high incomes) consume much more than others. The implication is that the more we spend, the greater is our stake in "the public". Under this kind of worldview, the main task of government - the agent of public policy - is to protect the economic interests of the affluent. Thus, the term "consumer" is much more exclusive than it sounds when it glibly rolls off the tongues of the Ministers of Commerce, Finance and Consumer Affairs; or from the Opposition spokespersons for Commerce et.al . The "State" and the citizenry are likewise ambiguous concepts. The welfare state can, for example, be presented, inclusively, as our friend (who supports us with social security, education and health care) and servant. Or the State can be an agency of bureaucratic power whose interest is diametrically opposed to ours; an agent who seeks to deny us benefits, to find any excuse to not provide or otherwise fund public services, and to charge us exorbitant taxes on the first dollars we earn. The state can be either an "us" or a "them"; inclusive or exclusive. The public interest is not our interest to a state that sees itself as apart from the people. "Citizenship" can also be either an inclusive or an exclusive concept. It all depends on how we define "citizen". Historically, the citizenry has excluded women, persons without property, slaves, the foreign-born, persons who do not practice a nation's official faith, the incarcerated. In future, the term might exclude persons without officially recognised tertiary qualifications. The status of citizen is capable of acting as a euphemism for an elite to identify their interest as the public interest, leaving those excluded as simply private persons. Indeed we may already be experiencing a process of social change - of social exclusion - that is better thought of as the publicisation of privilege than as the privatisation of the public sphere. Last night I watched a British movie, made in 1994, "The Advocate". (It was screened on TV3 in December.) It is a black comedy about a real-life lawyer in 15th century France who made his reputation defending animals in court. It focussed on the specific case that made his reputation; defending a pig that was charged with murdering a boy in Abbeville in 1452. (The real murderer was the seigneur's son, who, as it proved, was a serial killer.) In the medieval worldview, the concept of "public" was hierarchical. At the top were the nobility - in France, the seigneurial class. The monarch identified with that class. At the same time, there was no distinction in law between people and animals, although some ordinary people were seen as lower than others. In cases of sodomy, both the person and the animal were hanged. Consenting heterosexual sex between a Christian and a Jew could be classed as sodomy, because a Jew was considered in law to be the exact equivalent of a dog. In 15th century Europe, debate became quite contentious when actually figuring out who or what was superior to who or what. Apparently, it took three days of priestly debate to decide that flies were inferior in law to domestic animals. As the century progressed animals came to be seen in law much as children, the intellectually disabled, and the insane are today: as being unable to understand the consequences of their actions. In the opening sequences of the film, a man and a donkey were set to hang for sodomy. The donkey got off with a last-minute reprieve, on account of diminished responsibility. The status gap between public (meaning privileged) and private (meaning unprivileged) was much bigger than that between private persons and animals. Both persons and animals were fully subject to the law, but the law was only for the benefit of the public; ie of the propertied consuming citizenry. In such a hierarchical worldview, a crime only exists when a lower being harms an equal or a superior being. In such a case, the felony is a public matter, and the public is as much the victim as the harmed person. In the reverse case, where the victim is of inferior status, the harm is generally deemed to be a private matter, no different to mistreating an animal. (That attitude encapsulates apartheid
(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) How science is really done
just one more... Eva Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. These observations are well born out in the following article about scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he generated new data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not rejecting the conventional theory but Gold's data. These observations are not so born out, because what they are not saying is that scientists observed, theorized, observered, experimented, theorized, and observed some more to get the current theory *before* Thomas Gold came up with his new theory -- which flies in the face of all those past observations. As an astrophysicist he is well aware that hydrocarbons are found in meteorites and on planets like Pluto where there is absolutely no chance of their having originated from plants - the conventional theory of petroleum geologists. Hydrocarbons does not necessarily mean petroleum. As a matter of fact most hydrocarbons found off-planet (we don't know about Pluto, BTW, very little chemical information from there as yet) is in the form of very simple hydrocarbons, such as methane, not the more complex stuff. No-one is claiming that all methane must come from biological processes. -- James H.G. Redekop | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Programmer | http://www.residents.com/ The Residents UUNET Canada | http://www.residents.com/Goons/The Goon Show [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.residents.com/Tzoq/ Home Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) How science is really done
another one from skeptics Eva ... These observations are well born out in the following article about scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he generated new data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not rejecting the conventional theory but Gold's data. Gold is an astrophysicist with From the sci.chem FAQ: The generally-accepted origin of crude oil is from plant life up to 3 billion years ago, but predominantly from 100 to 600 million years ago [1]. "Dead vegetarian dino dinner" is more correct than "dead dinos". The molecular structure of the hydrocarbons and other compounds present in fossil fuels can be linked to the leaf waxes and other plant molecules of marine and terrestrial plants believed to exist during that era. There are various biogenic marker chemicals such as isoprenoids from terpenes, porphyrins and aromatics from natural pigments, pristane and phytane from the hydrolysis of chlorophyll, and normal alkanes from waxes, whose size and shape can not be explained by known geological processes [2]. The presence of optical activity and the carbon isotopic ratios also indicate a biological origin [3]. There is another hypothesis that suggests crude oil is derived from methane from the earth's interior. The current main proponent of this abiotic theory is Thomas Gold, however abiotic and extraterrestrial origins for fossil fuels were also considered at the turn of the century, and were discarded then. A large amount of additional evidence for the biological origin of crude oil has accumulated, however Professor Gold still actively promotes his theory worldwide, even though it does not account for the location and composition of all crude oils. If you want the bracketed references, look the FAQ up yourself :-). I only got Part 6 via Deja News, and my ISP is having a go-slow at present. Here's another hit from Deja News: Re: Source of oil Author: Mark J. Mihalasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1997/07/18 Forum: sci.geo.geology Cliff Brandon "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@utw.com wrote: rossb@*spam, begone*lightspeed.net wrote: John Hernlund wrote: Hey Y'all, A chemist asked me the other day about some kind of theory on the origin of oil in the Earth. (snip) Ross Brunetti I seem to recall (Gold - mid 80's?) speculated that the 'carbon' component of the world's oil could be accounted for by it's proportion in condritic metorites. snip I think the above post may be referring to Thomas Gold, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University (or at least he was as of 1990). His ideas on the origin of oil and gas are rather unconventional. Essentially, Gold believes in a "non-biogenic" origin for oil and gas, and that the hydrocarbons reserviors collected in the near-surface crust have seeped up 40 km or more from the Earth's mantle, where they were deposited as the planet formed. In an attempt to verify his hypothesis, he drilled into a granite dome in Sweden, known as the Siljan Ring. Here is list of articles detailing his theories ane efforts: Osborne, D., 1986, The origin of petroleum: The Atlantic Monthly, February (no. 2?), pp. 39-54. (this is a summary article of Gold's ideas presented in layman's terms) Kerr, R. A., 1990, When a radical experiment goes bust: Science, v. 247, pp. 1177-1179. Shirley, K., post-1990, Drilling stops short of the target--Answers remain elusive at Siljan: AAPG Explorer... (sorry, that's all I have on this one, but it is certainly worth tracking down) Haggin, J., 1986, Drilling project in Sweden will test theory of abiogenic hydrocarbons: CEN, July 21, pp. 21-26... (another incomplete reference passed on to me... I'm not sure what "CEN" is, but based on the person who gave it to me, it could be an engineering journal) In short, funds for the drilling project ran out just before intersecting the deepest of 4 sub-horizontal seismic reflection intervals detected in the granite bedrock of the Siljan ring area. These intervals were initially thought to be permeable fracture zones (possibly containing hydrocarbons), but turned out to be diabase/diorite sills, which most likely had intruded into the more permeable rock. The presence of gas was noted throughout much of the drilling (thought the measurement techniques were somewhat dubious). Elevated amounts of hydrocarbons, though still extremely low and well below commercial amounts, were detected in the sill/fracture zones. The 4th seismic reflection interval was the strongest reflector, suggesting that it might have considerably more hydrocarbons than the previous three. The sill/fracture zone gasses are predominantly methane with almost no unsaturated hydrocarbons, and are isotopically heavy. The firm analyzing the gasses has suggested that the gas is of a non-biogenic origin. It seems that if you are of
(Fwd) RE: (Fwd) How science is really done
a response from skeptic, Eva Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. First off, this person appears to be confusing the terms "hypothesis" and "theory." They are two very different things. Next, if some scientist DID proceed this way, throwing out data everytime it contradicted previously-reached conclusions, one of two things would happen: 1) If the hypothesis is right, the contradictory data WAS wrong, and further data sets will bear this out. 2) If the hypothesis is wrong, taking 1000 more data sets will show the same thing, that it's wrong. These observations are well born out in the following article about Well, not really. scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he generated new data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not rejecting the conventional theory but Gold's data. Ah yes, Tommy Gold. Another one of those sad cases of a scientist who comes up with some interesting and groundbreaking work early on, then takes a left turn into LaLa Land and becomes a "scientific martyr." Gold is an astrophysicist with impressive credentials WITHOUT credentials in organic chemistry, or anything having to do with petroleum, however...this is the old "he's got a PhD, he MUST be right" gag. More importantly he conducted and experiment which debunks conventional theory - he drilled for oil and gas where the conventional theory would predict none would be found and found both. ... At considerable depth they found both oil and methane. Last I heard, that was a dry hole. They drilled in Sweden, and came up with a little bit of sludge that was terribly ambiguous. If he is right, there is much more oil and gas to be found than conventional models would indicate because they exist in places far removed from places the conventional theories predict and therefore far from where oil and gas companies typically drill. And so OF COURSE the Evil Scientific Cabal (backed in this case by the Evil Petroleum Cabal) is ignoring his work, because we all know that oil companies just aren't interested in finding NEW sources of their product, noo. And as for the Swedes who (AFAIK) have to import all their oil, they were just paid off to ignore these huge oil fields under their soil. Right. *** Regards, Dave Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly- dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. http://members.xoom.com/dwpalmer/home.htm * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: real-life example
If energy (oil?) is in short supply, can one afford to be "fair"? we can be only fair if the decision is made collectively on how to use a scarse resource, especially if the all the information and the options are well known by everybody. Eva Just wondering ... ! Bob Eva Durant wrote: You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: "as just as possible" vs "best possible way" I can't see contradiction. The two have large overlapping section. -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) How science is really done
I passed it on again, I hope you won't mind, those people seem to have time to read every article... I just respond to a few things: (Mike H.) It was methane that was detected on Pluto and in the tails of comets, according to Gold. methane is the very simplest CH compound. I belive astronomers found more complex stuff than that, but not any longer C chains. We have an astrochemistry department, I could ask... I know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and the sentence quoted does not demonstrate such a confusion. Your reader also totally misses my point. People like Wegener and Gold are not merely told their data or their hypotheses are wrong - they are pilloried and vilified for decades. Certain metaphors or images or ideas come to dominate science and any contradiction is met with almost hysterical denial at times. This kind of behaviour is a clear indication of of the non-rational in science, which was the point I was trying to make. The non-rational is particularly important when it comes to creating original ideas - creativity is a marriage of intuition, emotion and rationality. Time after time, if you read the history of science and technology, ideas come to people as epiphanies at the most unusual and unexpected moments, not as a conscious result of systematic and conscious analysis of the data. The patterning typically happens in the unconsious. Poincare famously had one of his most important insights, quite unbidden, as he stepped off an omnibus, for example, though admittedly that was in mathematics, not science. Theories seem to surface when there are enough data/ information is hanging around. Doesn't matter how suddenly an idea surface, in the majority of cases if that particular chap hadn't see the light, there was somebody else quite near to it. (Wallace? start with w anyhow) In a very few cases some individuals indeed are "ahead of their time". Which means, that there are insufficient data around to convince the science establishment, which yes, can be a bit slow moving. However, relying on accumulated data, peer review etc seems to be a very good method (best) of working so far. Remember, the vast majority of ideas DO turn out to be wrong - which also is part of the constructive database identifying the areas where there is no need to look again. The old greeks had some astounding speculative ideas about dialectics and materialism, just to mention the two that impressed me most... but they also had a million of other such speculative ideas that did not work out... They had no chance of separating the valid from the wrong, they had no sufficient data, sufficient tools. As an example of a theory which did not arise from the data, take Darwinian evolution. Historians of science accept that Darwin got the idea from classical economics, from reading Malthus, if I remember correctly. Then when he went on his famous voyage on the Beagle, the biological data fell into alignment with the Malthusian idea in his mind. It is not even a true theory, by the way, it is a tautology. But it is politically incorrect to say in the hearing of biologists who are inclined (metaphorically) to stone you for it. I believe there was a chap around that also had the same general idea as Darwin. I also believe that his main stimuli for his theory came from his travels to sepaated habitats. Also his attempts to adapt his theory to human society was a complete failure. but let's see the skeptics response on this one, they are very much into Darwin... I can't figure why would the oil industry shun Gold's ideas - they are not interested in the science establishment, only in money, and new technology is not even involved. Eva
Re: CUPE Privatization Report
I am reposting the following report which shows that Corporations are gaining control of our public services at an alarming rate for several reasons. These are:- 1) It seems to tie in with the lead article in the local newspaper of 26/1/99 headed up:- "STAFF CUTS ON CARDS FOR COUNCIL" I would appreciate feedback on my comments as well as on the report itself. This article reports on tentative plans of the Palmerston North City Council (New Zealand), which may be included in the upcoming Draft Annual Plan. A radical review of the Council's long-term financial strategy is necessary, or so it is claimed, because of escalating local body costs. Main points of the article are - staff cutbacks, a leaner organisation, user pays water charges and possible private sector involvement in the provision of services. 2) I am seeking feedback and comment from as many list members as possible on a number of issues the newspaper article raises so as to assist in formulating 'battle' strategy well in advance of the call for public consultation and submissions on the proposals. Issues raised in the article are:- a) COSTS. According to the City Manager the existing financial strategy is politically and publically unacceptable, because gross rates will rise by 45% and debt is expected to nearly double within 10 years. Under the new strategy, "while rates and user charges would be paid separately, they collectively would remain very similar to what the rate demand is today". I find this an amazing statement. On the face of it, and judging by the "Cupe Privatization Report"attached, this seems a fallacious argument. If the 'leaner organisation' is achieved and ratepayers get very little for their 'rate dollar' while most services including water, rubbish collection, road maintenance, (you name it), is contracted out to private providers, we are likely to end up paying far more than we do today, if only for the simple reason that private providers are there to make a profit, which must come from somewhere - the long-suffering ratepayers. b) EFFICIENCY. Further efficiency gains can be achieved over the next three years by introducing improvements to "internal processes", the article claims. c) QUALITY AND SAFETY. The article emphasises that levels of service will not be reduced and neither would the Council reduce its commitment to its current 10 year capital programme. Again, I would take that statement with a 'grain of salt' as it seems that privatizing public utilities does compromise levels of service as was shown by the problems experienced by Auckland in the delivery of electricity early in 1998 and the problem with water supply only a few weeks ago. d) STAFF CUTS. Then there is the important issue of job losses. According to the City Manager, staff losses are yet to be calculated as they will depend on what efficiencies can be achieved internally. This fails to take into account the fact that the Council has been going through endless restructuring and drives towards greater efficiency ever since the New Right agenda began to be implemented in the early 1980's. One has to ask - Just how efficient can an organisation become and is there ever an end to it? One thing is certain, if Palmerston North follows the pattern of elsewhere, greater use will be made of part-time and casual labbour as well as a general contracting out of work that used to be performed by the Council. Maybe this a part of what is meant by "efficiency gains" but I am not so sure. I would appreciate as much comment and feedback on these issues as possible. Cheers Ross Swanston At 01:39 PM 1/25/99 -0500, you wrote: Last week CUPE released a wide-ranging annual report on privatization. The full text of the report can be found at the website of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, www.cupe.ca Below is a brief summary of the report and information on how to order a copy. CUPE Releases Major Report on Privatization _Workers' Summary_ Going public about privatization It's a hostile takeover that would inflame any shareholder's meeting. Corporations are gaining control of our public services at an unprecedented pace. CUPE's Annual Report on Privatization documents for the first time the depth and breadth of the corporate takeover that's happening in our hospitals, schools, municipal services, community centres, social services and utilities. When the dots are connected, a clear picture emerges of the threat to good jobs, public safety, quality and accessibility. Pillaging the public purse Contrary to the seductive patter pitching privatization, selling off public services doesn't save the public treasury money. Deals struck with corporations leave governments and taxpayers to assume the risk for many ventures and pick up the pieces when a venture fails. Privatized services continue to draw on the public purse. But instead of supporting well-run, efficient services, tax dollars now
Re: Sustainable work
WHY (SHOULD WE) WORK? Are there sustainable moral reasons? Neva Goodwin wrote: The reasons to work are, as I see it, 1) Because there are things that need to be done Let me recaste this reason in 'language game' terms - to reveal some of the unrevealed logic jumps or presuppositions. The reason that we ALL SHOULD cooperate in (playing the game of) using the word 'work' as a tool for communication is to differentiate between two different classes of human activity- which we would signify as 'work' and 'not-work'. Why would we want (need) to cooperate in playing this game? 'There are things that need to be done', suggests Neva. What is that NEEDS to be done to require our (universal) cooperation in distinguishing two classes of human activity? There are many things that one or more persons think really NEED to be done, from their viewpoint. Eg, build an Olympic Games Stadium. But this is insufficient reason to invoke our universal cooperation in playing a 'work' language game. On the other hand, there is a class of things that ALL or most people believe NEED to be done. We might call these universal or basic needs. They are things that we can suppose all people NEED and could readily distinguish and agree upon, (through reflection and deliberation perhaps), despite their different cultural backgrounds. In order to fulfil the needs that ALL people have, we should ALL cooperate by distinguishing between activities that fulfil these needs and those that don't fulfil these needs. The former activities we should ALL call 'work', the latter 'not work'. Whenever a player uses the word 'work', according to this game, all the other players will understand that the word refers only to those activities dedicated to fulfilling the items on the agreed list of universal NEEDS. In order that players can play this game without excessive confusion, players will first need to identify and come to some agreement about what constitutes this list of universal/basic needs. This pressupposes a certain level of detail. For example, the item 'shelter' on its own would be insufficient. A plastic sheet can serve as shelter as can Hussein's palace hide-outs. Such a list would require some regionally variable performance criteria and limits, without which there will be great bewilderment about what 'needs to done', and hence what players will call 'work'. All this is logically pressuposed in the first reason Neva gave as to why 'work' is necessary (for all people). If we are to talk about sustainable work, I suggest that the language game will need to be both clearer and logically sustainable. The above is a hurried and undoubtedly imperfect contribution to that end. The tricky problem is, as I've noted in earlier postings: given the multiple meanings associated with the word 'work', how are we going to discern WHICH game a person is actually playing at the moment of our interaction, and which they imagine they are playing at that point, and which they are referring to when they use the word in a sincere conversation with us? To finish, I refer you to previous postings which argued that because of the diverse semantic baggage already overloading the word 'work', it is clearly a dysfunctional tool for communication, particularly noticeable when used in attempts, such as on this list, to seriously consider humankind's future directions. My conclusion has been (so far largely ignored) that the word is not sustainable, and should be scrapped (along with the biblical creation story) and replaced with some fresh new terms to denote the kinds of distinctions we might agree are worth sustaining. And, yes, I absolutely agree with Neva, in her comment that: If I was interested in creating a sustainable work situation, I'd start by getting the workers together to discuss things like this... start with the meaning of what is being done! -- Neva Goodwin Hope the above was a little more meaningful than my earlier postings. (see thread on 'working alternatives') Richard Mochelle
bounced
sorry if it is a duplicate Eva -- I passed it on again, I hope you won't mind, those people seem to have time to read every article... I just respond to a few things: (Mike H.) It was methane that was detected on Pluto and in the tails of comets, according to Gold. methane is the very simplest CH compound. I belive astronomers found more complex stuff than that, but not any longer C chains. We have an astrochemistry department, I could ask... I know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and the sentence quoted does not demonstrate such a confusion. Your reader also totally misses my point. People like Wegener and Gold are not merely told their data or their hypotheses are wrong - they are pilloried and vilified for decades. Certain metaphors or images or ideas come to dominate science and any contradiction is met with almost hysterical denial at times. This kind of behaviour is a clear indication of of the non-rational in science, which was the point I was trying to make. The non-rational is particularly important when it comes to creating original ideas - creativity is a marriage of intuition, emotion and rationality. Time after time, if you read the history of science and technology, ideas come to people as epiphanies at the most unusual and unexpected moments, not as a conscious result of systematic and conscious analysis of the data. The patterning typically happens in the unconsious. Poincare famously had one of his most important insights, quite unbidden, as he stepped off an omnibus, for example, though admittedly that was in mathematics, not science. Theories seem to surface when there are enough data/ information is hanging around. Doesn't matter how suddenly an idea surface, in the majority of cases if that particular chap hadn't see the light, there was somebody else quite near to it. (Wallace? start with w anyhow) In a very few cases some individuals indeed are "ahead of their time". Which means, that there are insufficient data around to convince the science establishment, which yes, can be a bit slow moving. However, relying on accumulated data, peer review etc seems to be a very good method (best) of working so far. Remember, the vast majority of ideas DO turn out to be wrong - which also is part of the constructive database identifying the areas where there is no need to look again. The old greeks had some astounding speculative ideas about dialectics and materialism, just to mention the two that impressed me most... but they also had a million of other such speculative ideas that did not work out... They had no chance of separating the valid from the wrong, they had no sufficient data, sufficient tools. As an example of a theory which did not arise from the data, take Darwinian evolution. Historians of science accept that Darwin got the idea from classical economics, from reading Malthus, if I remember correctly. Then when he went on his famous voyage on the Beagle, the biological data fell into alignment with the Malthusian idea in his mind. It is not even a true theory, by the way, it is a tautology. But it is politically incorrect to say in the hearing of biologists who are inclined (metaphorically) to stone you for it. I believe there was a chap around that also had the same general idea as Darwin. I also believe that his main stimuli for his theory came from his travels to sepaated habitats. Also his attempts to adapt his theory to human society was a complete failure. but let's see the skeptics response on this one, they are very much into Darwin... I can't figure why would the oil industry shun Gold's ideas - they are not interested in the science establishment, only in money, and new technology is not even involved. Eva [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
bounce 4
-- If energy (oil?) is in short supply, can one afford to be "fair"? we can be only fair if the decision is made collectively on how to use a scarse resource, especially if the all the information and the options are well known by everybody. Eva Just wondering ... ! Bob Eva Durant wrote: You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: "as just as possible" vs "best possible way" I can't see contradiction. The two have large overlapping section. -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
bounce x
-- just one more... Eva Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set. These observations are well born out in the following article about scientific heretics and particularly Thomas Gold, because he generated new data on the origins of oil and gas and geophysicists are not rejecting the conventional theory but Gold's data. These observations are not so born out, because what they are not saying is that scientists observed, theorized, observered, experimented, theorized, and observed some more to get the current theory *before* Thomas Gold came up with his new theory -- which flies in the face of all those past observations. As an astrophysicist he is well aware that hydrocarbons are found in meteorites and on planets like Pluto where there is absolutely no chance of their having originated from plants - the conventional theory of petroleum geologists. Hydrocarbons does not necessarily mean petroleum. As a matter of fact most hydrocarbons found off-planet (we don't know about Pluto, BTW, very little chemical information from there as yet) is in the form of very simple hydrocarbons, such as methane, not the more complex stuff. No-one is claiming that all methane must come from biological processes. -- James H.G. Redekop | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Programmer | http://www.residents.com/ The Residents UUNET Canada | http://www.residents.com/Goons/The Goon Show [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.residents.com/Tzoq/ Home Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] [application/octet-stream is not supported, skipping...] - End of forwarded message from /DD.msdos=PSCNHQ$/LAURIER2$[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FW Criminalization of the Poor (fwd)
London Free Press Columnist: Judy Rebick January 22, 1999 The criminalization of Ontario's poor By JUDY REBICK I am hearing from Premier Mike Harris a lot more than I want to. Every time I turn on the TV or radio, there he is, pitching his government's performance. Yesterday, I got a pamphlet in my mailbox about "safety." The government has thrown hundreds of families into the streets because of a 21-per-cent welfare cut, as documented in Anne Golden's report on homelessness in Toronto, and he is talking about safety. According to recent reports, the government has spent $30 million on partisan ads in the last two years. They don't have enough money to give a pregnant woman on welfare a supplement so she can eat better but they can spend almost $1 million on a pamphlet that harkens back to the good old days when "we were able to leave our back doors open." The four-colour pamphlet says it costs 20 cents to produce and distribute. It forgot to say 4.1 million English-language versions and 250,000 French-language versions have been distributed, bringing costs close to $1 million. Others have lambasted this outrageous and unprecedented use of taxpayers money. Even the conservative National Post has taken the premier to task. What the ads make clear to me is that the Harris Tories don't really care about fiscal responsibility. The message of that little "safety" pamphlet makes it pretty clear what they do care about. Our society is safer now than it has been in a while. Violent crime has dropped for the sixth year in a row. Youth crime also dropped. Most experts credit the drop in crime rates to demographics. There aren't as many young men, who commit most of the crimes, as there used to be. But that doesn't stop Harris from playing on public fears, particularly those of older people about crimes like home invasions. The scariest line in the pamphlet is "in the past three years, more dangerous offenders have been put behind bars and kept out of our communities . . . Parole is being denied more than it is granted." Canada already incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than any country in the developed world, except the United States. Canada imprisons more young people than the United States. But right-wingers like Harris want to put more and more people in prison. It is a pattern. Right-wing ideologues who oppose government spending on social programs to improve the lives of the poor and disadvantaged always support increased expenditures on police, prisons and military. The United States has imprisoned a significant percentage of its poor male population. In the last 15 years, the prison population in the U.S. has tripled. At a rate of 645 people imprisoned for every 100,000 in the population in 1997, the U.S. imprisoned a higher percentage of its population than South Africa under apartheid. The rate for blacks is 6,926 imprisoned per 100,000 black people compared to 919 for whites. That's in the U.S., not in South Africa. Factor in parole and probation and 5.4 million Americans were in prison or in the prison system. That is five per cent of the male population and 20 per cent of the black male population. About 60 per cent of inmates are there for possessing or dealing drugs. Some analysts have estimated U.S. unemployment rates would be two percentage points higher if it counted the men in prison. In a conference recently broadcast by CBC Radio One's Ideas program, American writer Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out how the deep class division in the U.S. is self-perpetuating. When government spends little or nothing on social assistance and more and more on the repressive forces of the state -- police, prisons and military, poor people begin to see government as the problem rather than a source of solution. All a ghetto-dwelling black male sees of the government is police and prison guards. The idea that electing a politician could promote community interests becomes more remote. That is one explanation for the alienation of the majority of Americans with their electoral system. In the last election, only 40 per cent voted. When Harris asks in his pamphlet, "Who is more important these days, convicted criminals or ordinary people like you?" he is starting down the American path of criminalizing the poor and disadvantaged. The only way the savage dog-eat-dog policies of the Harris government can succeed is by convincing the middle class that poor people are bad people threatening our way of life. Criminalization of the poor is how the U.S. succeeded in creating the most unequal society in the developed world. I am sick at heart that my tax dollars are being used to do the same thing in Ontario. - - Judy Rebick is host of CBC Newsworld's Straight From the Hip. Her column appears Fridays. Letters to
FW Inequality and Health
From: Dennis Raphael[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] From Poverty to Societal Disintegration: How Economic Inequality Affects the Health of All Canadians For most Canadians real income decreased during the 1990's, and by 1996 the level of child poverty had begun to set ever-increasing records. At the same time the rich were getting richer, the cause of which is obvious to Peter Montague, the editor of Rachel's Environmental Newsletter: "The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments." While the extent of increasing economic inequality in Canada has been documented in reports such as The Growing Gap by the Centre for Social Justice, there has been little public discussion of the health effects of economic inequality. This is surprising since prestigious publications such as the British Medical Journal have stated: "What matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society." Economic inequality may be the major public health issue facing Canada and other Western nations. Why is this so? Increasing Poverty Poverty is not good for children and other living things. The Canadian Institute of Child Health's report The Health of Canada's Children documented the profound variation between poor and non-poor children in incidence of death and illness, accidents and injuries, mental health and well-being, school achievement and drop-out, and family violence and child abuse. Explanations for these effects include material deprivation associated with poverty such as malnutrition, poor housing, and lack of clothing. More important may be poverty's grinding effects that produce feelings of hopelessness, lack of control, and depression, all processes that manifest effects through biological pathways and lead to disease. Health workers tend to focus on the health impacts of poverty through programs to teach skills and provide information and support to change individual lifestyles. These programs say little about the economic conditions that create health problems. Sadly, recent poverty figures suggest that Canadian governments seem to be working hard to increase, rather than decrease, poverty levels. Inequality Affects Everybody, Not Just the Poor It now appears that economic inequality affects the health of the well-off as well as the poor. For example, after 20 years of rapidly increasing economic inequality, the most well-off in Britain now have higher heart attack and child mortality rates than the least well-off in Sweden. Other data indicate that societies with less inequality have lower death rates -- even controlling for absolute level of economic resources. This is also so in USA communities: more economic inequality is associated with greater death rates - among the well off as well as the poor. In Unhealthy Societies: the Afflictions of Inequality, Richard Wilkinson shows that societies with greater economic inequality begin to "disintegrate" -- that is, they show evidence of decreased social cohesion and increased individual malaise. These are all precursors of increased illness and death. To illustrate, the well-off increasingly opt out of the public discourse. They send their children to private schools, lobby for two-tiered medical systems, hire security guards for their property; all of which heightens societal disintegration. In Canada, the well-off grow wealthier, but become subject to the same threats that the less-well off experience -- deteriorating health and educational systems, increased crime and violence, and greater danger on the roads -- among others. All of which is associated with a lack of personal control; an important predictor of illness and death. Another means by which economic inequality affects Canadian society is through the tax base. Societies with greater economic inequality and poverty have lower tax rates that favour the rich. In Ontario for example, income tax breaks to the well-off lead to reduced services to the most vulnerable. The result is less social cohesion, greater differences in health and well-being, and increased evidence of societal disintegration such as poverty and homelessness. Societal and Public Health Responses Canadians need to become more aware of the effects of increasing economic inequality. Currently, there is no one societal institution that monitors the health effects of government policies such as the ones creating economic inequality. Possible candidates for such a role are municipal, provincial and federal public health units. Acting as a kind of health ombudsperson, these units could advise governments and institutions on policies and actions that will enhance the health of the citizenry. They could assure that government
Re: real-life example
At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
Re: real-life example
Jay Hanson writes: Democracy makes no sense. Right, democracy is the worst system except for all the others, since power will always corrupt. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. So is the corresponding straw man form of any kind of government. Government by age? Government by family name? Government by bank account? Government by narrow technical expertise? -- P-) ___o -o Peter Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] _-\_, -_\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072 (*)/ (*)-(*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks -- More comfortable AND faster ... that's REAL technology!
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and xperience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Somehow I'm not at all surprised that this is your point of view. But then how is merit to be determined? Testing and experience, you say, but who will assess this? Surely an intelligent and informed public should have You said it yourself. When we want a leader to fly a plane, we find one who has passed tests and has air time. When we want a leader to do surgery, we find one who has graduated medical school. Qualifications for these leaderships have explicit tests and measures. Since the human mind evolved predisposed for social manipulation, when we chose leaders by popularity contest, we naturally get the best "manipulators". In other words, we get the most-corrupt, most-accomplished- liars waving their arms in front of our faces each day on television. Sound familiar? Since they really aren't that entertaining, why bother? If they were any good at law, they would still be practicing. What possible skill is anyone selected by popularity contest likely to be qualified for? Used cars? Life insurance? Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: one's fly is unzipped
- Original Message - From: Victor Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] On this thread I'll have to agree with Eva against Jay's contention that a mind is predisposed [by evolution] to reproduce the genes that created it. A human being is predisposed to get laid, which in bygone ages usually had the effect of reproducing the genes. Patriarchy, emphasizing reproduction and transmission of property to the offspring, has been admittedly the most widespread form of social organization, and it does articulate the supposehere are social structures enough with other assumptions for us tod evolutionary imperative of reproduction. However, t doubt that the reproductive urge (as opposed to the sexual urge) is an evolutionary given: Predisposed means before socialiazion. 1. a. To make (someone) inclined to something in advance. Jay
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Peter Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. So is the corresponding straw man form of any kind of government. Government by age? Government by family name? Government by bank account? Government by narrow technical expertise? How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? If democracy means "rule by the common people", then America has never been a democracy What's more, our founding fathers never INTENDED for America to be a democracy: "These passages all too neatly anticipate Madisons conception of citizenship: do not give "the people" any power when they are assembled; allow some of the white males, acting in isolation, the fleeting participation of voting for their representatives and restrict the right for as long as politically possible to one branch of the legislature. Beyond this minimalist approach to politics, ask little else of the people, except under extraordinary conditions." As it has turned out, modern evolutionary scientists have found that the Founding Fathers were right: true democracy wont work. Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy. As one political scientist recently put it: "[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current) opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message like being told that ones fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment." Read all about it at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm Jay
Re: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) How science is really done
-Original Message- From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: list futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 3:54 AM Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) How science is really done [snip] I believe there was a chap around that also had the same general idea as Darwin. I also believe that his main stimuli for his theory came from his travels to sepaated habitats. Also his attempts to adapt his theory to human society was a complete failure. but let's see the skeptics response on this one, they are very much into Darwin... I believe you are thinking of Wallace here. If memory serves me, he was ready to publish a sketchy theory of evolution, and then got introduced to Darwin who was on the verge of publishing the much more massive "Origin of Species". My recollection on the matter of human societies is that Wallace was interested in language. Like most Europeans of his time, he expected that the language of a primitive people would be demonstrably more "primitive" than languages of "civilized" people. Wallace spent time among the Australian aboriginals, and to his credit realized that the data did not fit the theory. Wallace is usually cited in linguistics as an interesting precursor of Noam Chomsky whose generative grammar theories predict that all human languages will be equally complex because the ability to learn language is innate in the human species, versus structural linguistics which assumes that language is learned by simple association of ideas, which would lead to the assumption that some languages would be more "primitive" than others. Live long and prosper Victor Milne Pat Gottlieb FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
Re: real-life example
Jay: How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? God will write them? Theocracies worked for a while, but they too had their problems -- e.g. the classic Mayas screwed up their environment just as badly as we have. Ed Weick
