The system sucks

The Lower (formerly No) Impact Man, Colin Beavan, has succinctly expressed my current opinion on the environment in a recent post (that I also shared with you, incidentally): the system sucks. By that, he means that the ruts in the road that we normally follow throughout our lives are not designed with the environment in mind; it's the backdrop, and it's taking a beating, according a body of knowledge (including last year's IPCC report).

The example that's the centrepiece of his post is air travel, and it's also the one that forced me to look long and hard at my life. I realized that for many of the previous years, my lifestyle didn't reflect my opinions; there are all sorts of examples I could list, but by far the most damaging to the environment was my annual air travel.

Colin writes about the incentives to vacation once a year versus, say, going on longer sojourns, much of which could be done over land, and I certainly live in that world. (While he also makes some valid points about business travel, that isn't the world I live in right now.) I would eventually lose my vacation allotment were I to attempt such a drastic change in my lifestyle, so I will go a step farther and say that the system punishes that sort of behaviour.

I love traveling. And while I love the breadth of settings my country offers me - and there are still many parts of it that I have yet to explore - I love traveling far away. I have only just begun to travel the world. I can envision a time when my wife and I will be traveling somewhere warm every year, as we do now, and taking another trip to a far-off locale, in addition to our annual trip 'down East' in the summer (by car). Yes, some years that extra trip will probably be closer to home (e.g., the birthday celebrations in Québec City this year), but I certainly don't want to feel obligated to do that.

That may be selfish, but at this point in my life, I'm O.K. with that. I will use cloth grocery bags, I will buy fair-trade coffee (and drink it out 'n' about if it's served, in my travel mug if I have it, or out of a paper cup if that's the only option), I will take the stairs, I will drive a smaller car, but I will not feel bad when our annual flight down South blows all the carbon dioxide emissions I've managed to save during the previous 364 days; not for one minute.

Some of the examples I've raised bring me to my final point: Colin's right; the system can be changed. I like my analogy of ruts in the road because it communicates how deeply ingrained some of this stuff is, while indicating that it isn't immutable. On the plastic grocery bags, complaining about that in the 80s would've got you some funny looks - acid rain was the only problem in our part of the world back then, in case you weren't aware - and even just a few years ago our mayor lamented the cost of sending our plastic bags to the Far East(!) for recycling when he canned the program. Now most of the grocery stores around my house take them back, and they all sell their own cloth bags. My favourite movie theatre, the Bytowne, sells fair-trade coffee (in disposable cups), and Bridgeheads are popping up all over the place.

The key is to identify the worst behaviours encouraged by the system and make some noise about them. In the time it takes you to put your thoughts down in a forum like this, you could have a strong, personal message for your MP or MPP. (I'm not a big fan of form letters, but that may be because I don't understand the system; there's that word again.) But another key is to identify those more malleable behaviours - the shallow ruts, if you will - that could be influenced by local campaigns and, likely, local spending habits. Even if those changes don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions, I think, in the aggregate, they show people the potential for real rewards from their efforts, and I think that's a message we don't hear enough these days.

Range Voting

I just got around to reading a very informative interview with William Poundstone on voting systems. I still have a lot to learn on this subject (as some have pointed out previously), which may account for my finding the interviewer's style a bit erratic; it was an excellent read otherwise.

Of particular interest to me was the discussion concerning small political parties: in addition to being the fairest voting system - according to a study by mathematician Warren Smith that is referenced throughout the interview - the range voting system also benefits small political parties. The idea is that by assigning each candidate a value in a range (say, from 1 to 10), voters address the 'spoiler effect', or the splitting of votes amongst similar candidates, such that a candidate in clear opposition to them wins the election with less overall support: under a range voting system, voters would be able to assign similar values to similar candidates, or to their favourite (possibly 'fringe') party candidate and the best of the candidates who are likely to win, if you will. This also addresses the concept of 'wasting' one's vote in a first-past-the-post or plurality voting system.

Musing on Nupedia and 'knol'

My first thought upon reading Google's announcement of its knowledge repository - called 'knol' - was that it's been tried before: Nupedia espoused similar goals before its demise. Subsequent thoughts included:

• Writing an article is a lot of work: will the benefits make it worthwhile? (Ad revenue would help with this.) The benefits of name recognition may be tough to quantify before you reach real renown, for example.


• A picture and biography of the author raise questions too: playing on their book analogy, I do check the dustcover occasionally, but it's rarely the deciding factor; particularly when I'm looking for an authority on a subject (as opposed to reading for pleasure, for example): the calibre and number of recommendations, followed by the quality of the writing are much more important to me. Also, I tend to agree with the criticism of journalists who include their pictures next to their newspaper articles: shouldn't the writing speak for itself? (Although, admittedly, this does seem fairly innocuous nonetheless.)

The circumstances surrounding Nupedia leave me of two minds: one could say that Wikipedia's rise detracted from Nupedia by offering a potentially less time-consuming means of contributing. However, one could also say that Wikipedia's rise brought attention to open knowledge in general, and that experts would quickly recognize what many more people have since: there are limits to the utility of articles that are perpetually open to modification by all; a sister site with Nupedia's philosophy could be attractive to that community of experts.

Whether Nupedia implemented that philosophy is open to debate. Certainly, and I say this with a tinge of irony, its Wikipedia article details a number of flaws. For my own part, I was content to copyedit articles in my subject area of computer science, so I have difficulty believing that experts suffering comments from anonymous reviewers with no knowledge of the subject area was endemic or little more than 'growing pains', as it were. Again, I know I had doubts as to whether I would be accepted as a CS reviewer with only a BCS to my name.

I'll be watching 'knol' with great interest. In addition to the tarnish Wikipedia has accumulated in recent years, the other, probably far more significant, circumstance associated with knol's introduction is its sponsor, and the enormous buzz that comes with it. Many will rightly say that if Google can't do this, no one can for the foreseeable future.

More on the public's perceptions: nanotechnology

I've written about the disconnect between the fears of the public and those of the experts before. A report published yesterday focuses on nanotechnology, and as one might expect, one of the only significant sources of public concern regarding it related to surveillance devices: a favourite bogeyman of the mass media and privacy advocates alike (although, admittedly, their complaints normally focus on the macro devices, as it were).

Still, I don't know that I would've ranked any of the subtopics in the article as a concern; yet another research topic, I guess.

Update: December 3: Building a Safe Nanotechnology Future, and, for the truly industrious, Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century sounds like an excellent resource.

The role of deception

I read Flowers for Algernon recently, and Charlie's frustration after seeing a movie with a sappy ending early on in his development - It isn't real! - came to mind as I read this statement in an In Character article on deception and autism:

Many children with autism are perplexed by why someone would even want to deceive others, or why someone would think about fiction or pretense.

For further reading on the uses of deception, check out the International Herald Tribute article entitled Denial makes the world go round.

Problems with proportional representation

Some time ago, a friend and I discussed some alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral system. With the referendum on "mixed-member proportional" representation in Ontario coming up this month, these sorts of discussions are in the news again: in particular, David Warren's column in the Citizen this morning detailed how much of what I highlighted as advantages of proportional representation could be abused.

I think he goes too far in characterizing it as a potential "disaster," but he certainly gives us food for thought.

Rory Stewart to speak in Ottawa

I've spoken briefly about Rory Stewart in the past. This is an excellent opportunity; while it is free, seating is limited so register early.

Facebook news?

The CBC is now keeping me apprised of where Canada ranks in Facebook. I hope this isn't the extent of their plan for engaging the "Facebook generation".

On space colonization

When I read Charlie Stross's essay on the impracticality of space colonization, mankind's imperative to survive came to mind as a good counterpoint. As I mulled this over, however, I realized that I was equating life on Earth as we know it now (e.g., suitable atmosphere, large swathes untouched, etc.) with survival; taken more generally, things could get pretty bad on Earth (e.g., mass extinctions, pandemics, a large rise in sea levels globally, etc.) and mankind would still survive, in some form.

That's when I realized that Stross's argument held up: it would likely be more practical to build entire artificial environments on, and possibly orbiting, the Earth than to colonize space (given the technology that's feasible today, as Stross states).

That said, I decided to write about this after reading John Tierney's article in the New York Times on Dr. J. Richard Gott III's theory regarding the survival imperative. Initially, I wondered whether Dr. Gott covered points I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, however, he makes a simplistic leap from our survival to space colonization; if it is based on logic, as opposed to the popular talk on space, it isn't clear in the article. For example, Stross outlined why basing arguments for space colonization on our history of colonization on Earth is flawed.

Also, while the idea that all of our 'eggs', so to speak, are in the single basket called Earth intuitively compels us to colonize space - as I readily admitted above - Gott's seizing on Mars as a solution doesn't stand closer scrutiny: the biggest threats to Earth may also be threats to Mars (e.g., to be very optimistic, the lifespan of the Sun), so we certainly couldn't stop there. Which brings me back to my earlier point: while spreading ourselves out makes sense, for reasons outlined by Stross, things would probably have to get really bad on Earth before space colonization was considered practical.

Bill Moyers' interview with journalist Christian Parenti

I've read some disturbing news about the current situation in Afghanistan - I often share it and other information of interest in the frame to the left, incidentally - and Bill Moyers' interview with Christian Parenti last month (and the subsequent questions from the public that he answered) continues that trend.

As a caveat, let me add that I'm often skeptical of press reporting on Afghanistan, and North American press reporting in particular; however, Parenti seems to bring an informed opinion to the table, and, of course, the fact that he's sitting across that table from Moyers says a lot about him.

Godwin's Law

I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before reading today's xkcd strip, and while the law specifies on-line discussions, a follow-on point attributed to Godwin got me thinking. First, the law:

As an on-line discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I'm going to make another leap and say that the same logic applies to Neville Chamberlain comparisons. And I know I'm a bit late on this one, but, even after the public disaster, I don't think Elizabeth May gets that. Yes, she was sorry the day before, but, ooo, ooo! They did it too!

I'm sorry, if she couldn't do without the glass-houses comment, at least reiterate that it was a mistake. And I did laugh at the CBC radio news bit that played Layton's "I would never..." followed by his very own - deeply disgusted, I might add - Chamberlain reference in parliament a few years ago. So, no, I'm not claiming that no one should've pointed out this double standard. I just get this... smugness from the Green party site that seems to miss the point.

Conservatives propose to extend voting period

Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Has the government determined that a significant portion of the people who aren't voting cite polling booth hours when asked why they don't? And 2) Have they considered how this will change the polling booth security environment?

On the first point, I believe government employees are guaranteed a break to vote if their shift spans the polling booth hours. Can anyone confirm this? Or shed light on any private-sector policies?

On the second point, the longer they have to ensure the integrity of those ballot boxes, the greater their vulnerability.

Finally, if the answer to the first question is no, then the government could be wasting a lot of money, in areas related to the second question and beyond.

The U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Sharon Terry, president of the Genetic Alliance:

The American public can now access genetic tests, feel safe about their genetic information not being misused and participate in research that involves genetic information.

This is certainly a step down that path, but there are still many to go: there are many uses for genetic information beyond screening related to employment and insurance. And the bigger problem is collecting, using and retaining these data properly.

NASA ponders death

A NASA document on crew health shows how the agency is pondering some of the ethical questions raised by deep space exploration. I was again reminded of Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land as I read that sex would be dealt with separately: the book opens with, oddly enough, a look at a manned mission to Mars and the associated, seemingly-thorough screening process to select the crew. The mission ends in tragedy because of... you guessed it: sex.

I'm not suggesting that NASA will overlook this - the article suggests that sex will be considered under the category of behavioural issues. This is just one of those top-of-the-head posts.

The CBC's Office of the Ombudsman

Since the "Lawand report" last year, there have been a few CBC stories that have bothered me and others (via CanuckJack). It got to the point where I was seriously questioning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's integrity; an upsetting position, given that they're publicly funded.

In reading the CBC Ombudsman's latest annual report, and his findings regarding the "Lawand report" (including his further observations), I do sense a commitment to principled journalism. However, I can't help but wish that the Office of the Ombudsman had more teeth. For example, the following review of a complaint is from his annual report:

GEOFFREY POUNDER
Program: The World At Six, CBC Radio
Mr. Pounder complained about a CBC Radio report about Venezuela. Chavez may or may not be the villain the CBC makes him out to be. But the CBC's presentation is so dubious that it is impossible for listeners to form their own judgment.
...
Review ([David] Bazay)
While it is true that program balance can and should be best determined over time, and while I found overall coverage to be pretty well balanced, I did agree that there was some merit to Mr. Pounder's complaint. The report gave voice to one of President Chavez's supporters and to two of his critics, including the priest/sociologist cited at the very end of the item who described President Chavez as a tropical Milosovec, and accused him of destroying Venezuela's democracy. I shared Mr. Pounder's view that in fairness the president or one of his supporters should have had the opportunity to respond.

I wonder whether that's enough; whether, in the event that this sort of reporting was shown to be systematic, anything could be done about it. Again, it's my money we're talking about here.

I suppose the 43 466 complaints regarding the Green Party's exclusion from the televised leaders' debate last year support the notion that the CBC would be held to account for such actions; well, that they would draw significant ire anyway. And with the Ombudsman recommending greater public access to the Office in his annual report, one can hope that there wouldn't be a shortage of publicly-available evidence.

Update: May 9: The Auditor General also evaluates the CBC periodically.

Rory Stewart on The Agenda

If you haven't heard Rory Stewart speak, do yourself a favour and watch or listen to Steve Paikin's interview with him on The Agenda.

Green Party policy and nonviolence

The Green Party has announced that Kevin Potvin will not be allowed to run as their Vancouver-Kingsway candidate in the next election because his views are antithetical to Green Party values. The press release opens with the claim that Potvin [expressed] approval for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and that [n]on-violence is one of the Green Party's fundamental principles, so the party's position is clear.

I would hope that May read Potvin's article from 2002 before coming to that conclusion. And even if she did, I find such an unequivocal conclusion to be a bit of a stretch: after all, as Potvin clearly stated in the article, and in his rebuttal to the recent criticism, he was stating his feelings at the time, not advancing a violent ideology or some such. Besides, he was a journalist at the time. While such a statement from an elected representative of a country that must work closely with the United States might raise some eyebrows and ruffle some feathers, that's exactly what journalists are supposed to do.

Now maybe May had a telephone conversation with Potvin prior to issuing the press release. Maybe he said something to her that was aberrant to the rebuttal he posted. If so, I think it should've been included in the release, because the party's position seems flimsy as it stands; another example of the excessive caution in Canadian politics.

To take a theory such as nonviolence and apply it so broadly to everything representatives (and would-be representatives) of your party say and write is to invite disaster: if they manage to navigate that minefield at each and every press conference, you can be certain of what will be first and foremost on their minds at all times, and, by extension, of the chances of anything remotely illuminating being said.

And how did nonviolence get so high up in the party's platform anyway? When I hear antithetical and the Green Party, big oil and clear-cutting come to mind, but not violence. Not that I think violence solves anything, but it has about as much to do with environmental protection as womens' rights, or abortion. Let's stay on message here, people; at least 'til we get a bleedin' seat anyway.

The Minister of Industry responds...

I sent my MP a message last May regarding Bill C-60 (an Act to amend the Copyright Act). I got a copy of the Minister of Industry's response to him in the mail a week or so ago. The letter is dated March 1, 2007 and reads:

Mr. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Colleague:

Thank you for forwarding copies of recent letters from several of your constituents regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act (the Act).

In my view, the Act must continue to be supportive of innovation and research while reflecting current technological and legal realities. To this end, a balance between adequate protection for copyright holders and reasonable access to copyrighted material is critical.

With this in mind, I am working closely with my colleague, the Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage, to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform.

Please be assured that I am very mindful of the concerns expressed by your constituents, and will take these into consideration as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Maxime Bernier

c.c. The Honourable Bev Oda, P.C., M.P.

I'm pleased. It isn't practical to expect more from a politician, I would suggest. Notice that he used the word 'balance' to describe his view on the matter. I would go so far as to call that encouraging, save that it's only words at this point.

Chimps: Hauser vs. Heinlein

The brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, similar to the neural machinery for learning language, according to Harvard evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser... Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others.

That's a very different picture from the pivotal scene in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, where Valentine Michael Smith finally groks (fully understands) humour as he witnesses chimps in a zoo being cruel to one another.

That's the first thing I thought of as I read the article, and it isn't noteworthy for any other reason.

Dion, The Consummate Politician

Dion said it was parliamentary tradition for MPs to follow party line on confidence votes such as budgets.

"A vote on the budget, like a vote on a throne speech, is a vote of confidence. You cannot vote against the caucus on it."

Spouting tripe about traditions, party lines and what MPs cannot do is no way for a former academic to argue his position. Comuzzi's position - that he was supporting his constituents - wins hands down.