I remember when I first heard environmentalists complain about the effects of wind turbines or hydroelectric damns I thought they were crazy. Their standards seemed to be for perfection. Reading The Last Flight of the Scarlet Macaw, about the woman who founded the Belize Zoo and her fight to oppose a damn that she predicted would wipe out the scarlet macaw in Belize, really changed my mind. It became clear after reading that book that there are extreme effects even from green technologies. Hydroelectric damns ruin the ecosystem downstream as sediment is washed away and not replaced; nuclear power plants, when using once-through cooling systems can also kill our water life; and wind turbines are a threat to species in the area around them (whether it is fish when they are placed in the sea or the birds that fly around them).
Many of us think that if we use the right technology, we can continue to consume as much as we want without affecting the environment. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. On the scale that we are living, everything we do can have big consequences. This is especially the case when we look to move technology into places that are currently free of such human encroachment. This means that we can be smarter about it - by say building green technology in places we have already developed. For example, building solar panels on roofs is far better than in an otherwise untouched desert. But in the end, conservation and self-sacrifice need to get us a long way so that we don't need lots of new green technology that moves further and further into our untouched nature.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
My First 2010 Prediction
So I have been checking back in at NY Times political map, as well as InTrade and Rasmussen (which does seem somewhat conservative, but also seems pretty accurate). My prediction in the Senate is 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans; Democrats look like they'll win California, Connecticut and Illinois and Republicans will win the other toss-up states and Pennsylvania. The House looks like it will stay Democrat as well - maybe around 235 Democrats. Of course a whole lot can change between now and next November as issues change and candidates rise and fall (see Scott Brown), so take this with a gigantic grain of salt.
In fact, the thing I will be the most interested to track between now and November is the approval of the health care change - as well as the passion for one side or the other. My sense from past experiences is that people tend to forget about issues pretty quickly. With health care, I think much of the dissatisfaction is over how long it took to get passed, how contentious it was, the political procedures used to get it all passed, and a lack of understanding / believing some of the mischaracterization of it. None of these concerns seem to me to be things that voters would hold on to.
While we are talking about voting, I do want to reference one other related thing. Megan McArdle, writing for the Atlantic after health care was passed, wrote this pretty angry, and completely absurd post. She says we are in a different world because elected officials voted for something that many polls show has a minority of voter support. She seems genuinely shocked that politicians could ignore the will of their voters. Unfortunately, Ms. McArdle does not seem to understand the political system that was formed by our Constitution.
Our system is one of representative democracy - not direct democracy. Elected representatives have two, often conflicting, purposes tugging at them. On purpose is to follow the will of the voters; when politicians vote on something, they need to consider how their voters feel, and how strongly they feel it, if they want to get re-elected. But the other, and just as important, purpose is of an elected official in our system is to do the research and learn the issues and make the best decisions on the policies before them.
This means that sometimes an elected official will vote their conscience, or will have a better understanding of the issue than the voters (ahem, death panels), and will therefore vote differently than the majority of their constituents. At other times though, they will realize their voters feel strongly and will choose to vote against their conscience and best evidence (of course sometimes, maybe even most times, their conscience and the voters' preferences are in line). Either way, it is a regular tension and calculation among elected officials. And in fact it was designed that way. So to pretend that this is something new shows either that Megan McArdle does not actually understand the basic nature of our political system or was so mad about health care that she allowed herself to write an unreasonable, and poorly reasoned, post.
The beauty of our system though is that when politicians do vote against their constituents, their constituents have the ability to vote in someone who will vote differently - which in fact is what conservatives are pushing for. If health care is repealed in that way, I will likely be as mad then as she was when health care passed. But I will hopefully be wise enough to understand that it is part of the system, as opposed to a scary new world.
In fact, the thing I will be the most interested to track between now and November is the approval of the health care change - as well as the passion for one side or the other. My sense from past experiences is that people tend to forget about issues pretty quickly. With health care, I think much of the dissatisfaction is over how long it took to get passed, how contentious it was, the political procedures used to get it all passed, and a lack of understanding / believing some of the mischaracterization of it. None of these concerns seem to me to be things that voters would hold on to.
While we are talking about voting, I do want to reference one other related thing. Megan McArdle, writing for the Atlantic after health care was passed, wrote this pretty angry, and completely absurd post. She says we are in a different world because elected officials voted for something that many polls show has a minority of voter support. She seems genuinely shocked that politicians could ignore the will of their voters. Unfortunately, Ms. McArdle does not seem to understand the political system that was formed by our Constitution.
Our system is one of representative democracy - not direct democracy. Elected representatives have two, often conflicting, purposes tugging at them. On purpose is to follow the will of the voters; when politicians vote on something, they need to consider how their voters feel, and how strongly they feel it, if they want to get re-elected. But the other, and just as important, purpose is of an elected official in our system is to do the research and learn the issues and make the best decisions on the policies before them.
This means that sometimes an elected official will vote their conscience, or will have a better understanding of the issue than the voters (ahem, death panels), and will therefore vote differently than the majority of their constituents. At other times though, they will realize their voters feel strongly and will choose to vote against their conscience and best evidence (of course sometimes, maybe even most times, their conscience and the voters' preferences are in line). Either way, it is a regular tension and calculation among elected officials. And in fact it was designed that way. So to pretend that this is something new shows either that Megan McArdle does not actually understand the basic nature of our political system or was so mad about health care that she allowed herself to write an unreasonable, and poorly reasoned, post.
The beauty of our system though is that when politicians do vote against their constituents, their constituents have the ability to vote in someone who will vote differently - which in fact is what conservatives are pushing for. If health care is repealed in that way, I will likely be as mad then as she was when health care passed. But I will hopefully be wise enough to understand that it is part of the system, as opposed to a scary new world.
Life of Service
Every international vacation I take - or at least the ones I have taken to Zambia, Belize and Mexico - bring up a tension in my life that I cannot, and maybe will not, reconcile. Basically, I believe that because there is so much suffering in the world, those of us that are comfortable should dedicate ourselves to helping those that are suffering (this comes from both Christian - Luke 12:48 - and secular social justice traditions). Unfortunately, the conflict arises in how much one should dedicate themselves to service.
In a world with incredible amounts of misery, it would seem than that one should dedicate themselves fully to service. However, dedicating yourself to service completely prevents you from many of the beauties and joys in life. To deliver a level of service I think the world deserves from me would require me to live a much more modest lifestyle and allow myself much less free time for myself. With that type of lifestyle, having a solid relationship and family is near impossible.
It is also however a standard that I cannot fathom living up to. Mostly because it isn't such an easy moral choice about spending my money on caviar versus donating to charity, or spending my time with worthless pursuits versus volunteering. Instead it can the choice between saving money for the future or donating, and spending time reading, learning music, traveling, and giving myself to family, versus volunteering.
In fact though, I don't even have to look at volunteering because the choice comes through work as well. I work in government trying to make policy that makes peoples' lives better. The longer hours I work, the more I'll be able to improve government services. But again, getting caught up in the work can be exhausting, and takes me away from my family and activities that make me happy.
So many things in life are choices that involve trade-offs - for instance a choice between more liberty or more fairness and between more economic vitality or more social protection. In all of these cases, the extremes are the least desirable options. So is the case with my life. I cannot really see myself being completely dedicated to service of the world, nor entirely dedicated to beauty and family. So the trick is in the constant re-evaluation, constant marginal changes to correct for going too far in one direction.
After Zambia I felt that I was not doing enough to actually make people's lives better. I have a new job since then and I feel I am doing better work and that I am having more of an impact (although not quite enough to completely remove that guilty feeling). But now after Mexico, I wonder if I am getting too caught up in work and not doing enough to just enjoy the beauty of life - not doing enough to find the peace and joy.
This feeling I have now will not impact my immediate future, but has implications on plans for the future. This city can consume you - its blinding speed and sense that it, the city, is all that matters. I compare it to scuba diving in a current - it can be rewarding and exhilarating, but you get swept up in it so much that it is hard to remember that you can go places where there is no current and just float slowly enjoying the tranquility and beauty and peace around you.
The truth is that I prefer calm dives with no current because I prefer slower dives where I can float and explore. I'm not positive though if the metaphor carries over into my work life. Will I enjoy a slower life in a smaller place more than the bustle of NY? There will always be places where there are people that need help, so that won't be a problem. But will it feel insignificant compared to New York, where everything feels like the most significant thing in the world? And will that matter?
The reason I write such a personal post on a political blog is that each individual decision like mine has implications on our society. And most of our political debates revolve around this very issue. Many on the right just want to enjoy their own lives and not be bothered serving other people. Most on the left want society to help other people and are willing to trade some of their income (if not always their time) to accomplish that. There are many more dimensions to our debates, but this is definitely one of them.
In ourselves and our country, as these competing interests pull out ourselves and our politics, you see incremental changes and corrections. My sense is that the changes, when looked at broadly, show a slow but general progression to more service and help so that all can have a basic, decent standard of living.
I also think though that we can have a lot of both. I think I can have a life where I give a lot of myself in service, but also spend enough time with my family and for myself to enjoy the beauties of life. And I also firmly believe that we can raise enough revenue to support programs for the most vulnerable in our society without robbing people of the ability to have a good life and reap the rewards of their hard work and ingenuity.
The devil is in the details, and we often spend a lot of time working and thinking about the exact right combination. But the good news is that if we do not always get it perfect, we get close most of the time.
In a world with incredible amounts of misery, it would seem than that one should dedicate themselves fully to service. However, dedicating yourself to service completely prevents you from many of the beauties and joys in life. To deliver a level of service I think the world deserves from me would require me to live a much more modest lifestyle and allow myself much less free time for myself. With that type of lifestyle, having a solid relationship and family is near impossible.
It is also however a standard that I cannot fathom living up to. Mostly because it isn't such an easy moral choice about spending my money on caviar versus donating to charity, or spending my time with worthless pursuits versus volunteering. Instead it can the choice between saving money for the future or donating, and spending time reading, learning music, traveling, and giving myself to family, versus volunteering.
In fact though, I don't even have to look at volunteering because the choice comes through work as well. I work in government trying to make policy that makes peoples' lives better. The longer hours I work, the more I'll be able to improve government services. But again, getting caught up in the work can be exhausting, and takes me away from my family and activities that make me happy.
So many things in life are choices that involve trade-offs - for instance a choice between more liberty or more fairness and between more economic vitality or more social protection. In all of these cases, the extremes are the least desirable options. So is the case with my life. I cannot really see myself being completely dedicated to service of the world, nor entirely dedicated to beauty and family. So the trick is in the constant re-evaluation, constant marginal changes to correct for going too far in one direction.
After Zambia I felt that I was not doing enough to actually make people's lives better. I have a new job since then and I feel I am doing better work and that I am having more of an impact (although not quite enough to completely remove that guilty feeling). But now after Mexico, I wonder if I am getting too caught up in work and not doing enough to just enjoy the beauty of life - not doing enough to find the peace and joy.
This feeling I have now will not impact my immediate future, but has implications on plans for the future. This city can consume you - its blinding speed and sense that it, the city, is all that matters. I compare it to scuba diving in a current - it can be rewarding and exhilarating, but you get swept up in it so much that it is hard to remember that you can go places where there is no current and just float slowly enjoying the tranquility and beauty and peace around you.
The truth is that I prefer calm dives with no current because I prefer slower dives where I can float and explore. I'm not positive though if the metaphor carries over into my work life. Will I enjoy a slower life in a smaller place more than the bustle of NY? There will always be places where there are people that need help, so that won't be a problem. But will it feel insignificant compared to New York, where everything feels like the most significant thing in the world? And will that matter?
The reason I write such a personal post on a political blog is that each individual decision like mine has implications on our society. And most of our political debates revolve around this very issue. Many on the right just want to enjoy their own lives and not be bothered serving other people. Most on the left want society to help other people and are willing to trade some of their income (if not always their time) to accomplish that. There are many more dimensions to our debates, but this is definitely one of them.
In ourselves and our country, as these competing interests pull out ourselves and our politics, you see incremental changes and corrections. My sense is that the changes, when looked at broadly, show a slow but general progression to more service and help so that all can have a basic, decent standard of living.
I also think though that we can have a lot of both. I think I can have a life where I give a lot of myself in service, but also spend enough time with my family and for myself to enjoy the beauties of life. And I also firmly believe that we can raise enough revenue to support programs for the most vulnerable in our society without robbing people of the ability to have a good life and reap the rewards of their hard work and ingenuity.
The devil is in the details, and we often spend a lot of time working and thinking about the exact right combination. But the good news is that if we do not always get it perfect, we get close most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)