The Climate Debate

In the current climate debate, we have two vital initiatives right now in Washington State. Carbon Washington or I-732, which I have written about multiple times, and ST3 for Sound Transit are going to make our state a better place to live. Carbon Washington make our tax code a bell shaped curve as opposed to a simple regressive code, tax carbon, and fund the earning families income tax credit. These are all good things which we need to do right now. ST3 is going to fix the Greater Seattle mass transit mess which threatens our quality of life.

There are several arguments here which have been talked about and I see which are arguing against these propositions.

The first one are signs saying "No on ST3, fund education first". This is a red herring argument. It doesn't have anything to do with the content of ST3 and seeks to get people to vote against the progressive initiative we have right now and focus instead on another important issue. If there is an actual problem with ST3 then the opposition needs to state exactly what is wrong. There are major issues with ST3, primarily that the timeline for construction extends for 40 years. Most of the construction will be done within 20 years, but it still leaves some vital projects off for a long period of time. This however is not a valid reason to vote against ST3. It will set us in motion to get our mass transit funded and then in 3 years or so we can put forward another proposition to speed up the time frame. Voting against ST3 will not cause mass transit to move forward, but it will mean that we will get no additional progress until another proposition on the ballot. A net loss for climate activists.


The arguments against Carbon Washington on the other hand suffers from attacks which are both Red Herrings and Straw Men. The first common argument I see is they complain it is not funding our education. I lobbied for education in college and understand it is a vital issue. This however is a bill focused on three main issues, and three issues only. Inequality, the regressive nature of our tax code, and climate change. Education is not on the list. We need to fund our education system, and we do need to get additional funding for our state, but these are not what Carbon Washington does. Carbon Washington does about as much as one piece of legislation could possibly do and it does the three major issues through one major policy change, which is tax replacement with a more progressive tax than what we have.

The most common straw man argument against Carbon Washington I have heard from people who do not understand economics is that it will not reduce emissions. This is moose shit. Taxes reduce consumption of the good which is taxed, which is one of the most proven theories in all of economics. By taxing carbon it will increase the advantage of renewables making it so more people will move to renewable technology and consume less oil. This is one of the most widely agreed upon issues by economists around the world, and all of the evidence in the field points to this is true.



The other major argument against Carbon Washington is that it will hurt poor people. This is another big truck load of moose shit. When economists have graphed the impact of Carbon Washington on Washington State families vs. the current tax code we find the following results:


The graph speaks for itself. The opposition is lying.

This bill has shown very clearly that a lot of environmental organizations in Washington state are poorly run by people who do not understand climate science. Actual experts in related fields at universities across the state have endorsed I 732, while the people opposing it are not experts and do not do actual research to back up their claims. Their weak arguments only make me want I 732 to pass it even more to fight idiocracy as much as climate change. Good luck finding a professional with a degree in a related field who opposes Carbon Washington. This fight has turned into scientists vs. absolutists who have in their mind that there is only one way to fix a certain problem. Anyone who has ever studied economics knows that this is completely not true, and is what makes economics fun. There are multiple ways to fix economic problems, and often times the differences between solutions, such as carbon taxes vs cap and trade, comes down to small efficiency gains.

When it comes down to it, Carbon Washington is here now. People who only want other solutions have not filed their initiatives. Global warming is an imminent threat to humanity and we need to do what we can now. If there is an improvement to the carbon tax in the future (which will probably be a small technocratic tweak), a bill that funds our education, and possibly an income tax I will support that. Given how those are years away at a bare minimum we need to do what we can today. Not voting for Carbon Washington would have been like voting against gay marriage in 2012 because it didn't include hate crime legislation. Such actions are a fool's endeavor. Carbon Washington is a net gain for working class families, and a net gain for our climate here in Washington State. ST3 is far from perfect but it is better than nothing.

This is why the only pro-climate action this election is to vote YES on 732 and YES on ST3.

Resources:
https://yeson732.org/faq/

Anti-Intellectualism Part 1

I like to think of myself as an intellectual, and today I was thinking of the anti-intellectual plague in American society. Most of my good friends I definitely consider to be intellectuals, and I frequently have deep conversations with them on a variety of topics. It is in my experience very rare to find an individual who truly is an intellectual across a wide range of disciplines. I have noticed that anti-intellectualism is a plague in American society which has often been noted by many authors before me. For myself, I have noticed several major factors which contribute to anti-intellectualism which I see as personal attacks for all thinking people.
But first, I define the word intellectual as someone who tries to really understand why things work and takes a rational approach to understand things at a deeper level not just when is required but also as a game. An intellectual does not have to be given an assignment to delve into a topic.
With this out of the way, here are 5 ways I have noticed people attack intellectualism in day-to-day interactions.

1. Disparaging theoretical knowledge as not being valid or useful. Only people with experience have the right to comment on a topic, even if you have a degree and have spent hundreds of hours examining the topic, that is not enough to really understand it. I believe this is wrong because while everyone participates in the economy, that does not mean that they have studied the details of how it works the way it does. Most people drive cars, but not everyone is a mechanic or even should mess with their engine. The same is true with every issue, merely having experience as part of something does not mean that you understand why. This is one of the most common types of attacks on intellectuals I have noticed, mostly at my university from classmates which is ironically where most of my interactions with non-intellectuals takes place.
2. Not being open to new ideas is a very direct attack on intellectuals who are the people who come up with those new ideas. It is deeply tied into a conservative mentality (which is wanting things to stay as they are, and not necessarily political) and the largest enemy to progress.
3. "Ivory tower" implies that universities and professors are not engaged in real world activities. This is opposite from the truth as many professors actively take their knowledge to realms outside of their work in non-profits, religious organizations, advising for politicians, and writing books. Very few phrases in the English language are as divorced from reality as the false notion of the "ivory tower."
4. When children demonstrate their intellectual nature (as I definitely did as a child, and still do) there are other children who will bully that child and make them ashamed for being curious. This is furthered by media children are given and is very psychologically damaging to them, isolating them from their peers. If a intellectual child is isolated from other intellectuals around their age it can be particularly damaging. Different organizations outside of school which foster an intellectual mindset are crucial to providing us with the friendships we need to foster our nature without being damned for it.
5. "Every side has a point" proposes that intellectuals have the same footing as people who have no understanding of the issues. It lowers the pursuit of knowledge to the level of lobbyists who are only working for their own short term gain. It discredits rationalism in our political debates which means we get policies which are not nearly as good as we are capable of having, or frankly deserve. There is a very big difference between science and conspiracy theories, and that idea needs to enter our media discourse. This sort of problem creates massive economic problems when policies like austerity which economic models predict and the consequence of ignoring the science has been a lost decade for Europe. At an even bigger level, the "every side has a point" which brought Andrew Wakefield's scam out to the public in a way that made people not get vaccinated is nothing short of mass murder. This notion needs to go.
6. Simply discrediting the findings of science. Many politicians will continue to say things about the economy, global warming, etc. which are wrong and people latch onto because they sound good. It makes it much harder to do research to make the world a better place when you are always defending your work from baseless attacks.

I hope that someday we can throw off the anti-intellectual atmosphere which America has inherited from the Puritans of Massachusetts so we can be a better society. We need to build a world where people are free to search for the truth and understand why things happen. Social justice requires it, and it is our moral duty to make such a world a reality.

Europe's refugees

The current crisis in the middle east, while toppling dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, and getting women the right to vote in local elections in Saudi Arabia (bringing the total number of countries where women can't vote to 0) has also created the war in Syria. Combined with the destabilizing of Iraq which was caused by the United States invasion the emergence of ISIS was almost inevitable. Looking further back the entire situation in the Middle East was created by the carving of international borders is a consequence of colonialism which was done by Europe particularly the United Kingdom. The only fair response to the current crisis in Syria given the United Kingdom's role and the carving of artificial boundary lines is to bring in refugees and help create the stability and peace in the Middle East with respect and for human rights and science. Europe has an obligation given their colonial history and their support of dictators since then to help rebuild the Middle East. While it is true that the current leaders in Europe today we're not themselves individually responsible for what occurred a hundred years ago what is happening now as a consequence of their national action and I believe it would be the right thing for European countries to work on peace building in the region and make it so human rights are respected. Even if we hold that individuals are not responsible for their ancestors actions but for their own alone Europe has the resources and the wealth to help people in the Middle East and it is the moral action if you see someone needing help you help then there is no exception to this principle in my opinion given Europe's moral fiber and given that nobody else except the United States, Canada, and probably Japan as well have the resources to make a significant impact in the Middle East it is only the right thing to help bring peace to the Middle East and support refugees. Canada in particular is a very interesting situation Stephen Harper has made it so, this reduces rolling peacekeeping around the world significantly this action is completely unethical and contrary to all the values that make him Canada a very special country. United States being the richest country in the world tied with China, makes it so that the United States has would suffer almost no cost relative to the size of our overall economy to help people in the Middle East. Such the porch would be seems like bringing in advisors and helping to draft good constitutions with the big with the cooperation of intellectuals in these countries, building up the systems of education healthcare which these countries currently black, and helping to build a framework for liberty and human rights is in the form of a bill of rights to be respected by the government to make it to all people are respected.

The current situation with the refugees in Europe shows this underline conflict which is buried deep inside the Europeans conscience. It is surprising that Angela Merkel turns out to be the one who has been one of the most liberal members of the European Council on this issue but I am glad none the less even though her policy with Southern Europe has been far from diplomatic, reasonable, or fair.

Current steps to undo the damage which has been done by ISIS would be supporting the building of refugee camps, unfortunately some military action is necessary, as well as helping to build a democratic framework, along with the quality of government. There has to be rule of law as opposed to rule of man which will protect the freedom of these people if they have an election where the right wing win for one or two election cycles. The biggest hurdle in doing this is of course Russia which supports us on but I believe that given time we can achieve this goal of helping freedom grow in Syria.

While foreign countries can help, at the end of the day is up to the people of the Middle East to secure their face this is what we saw with the Arab Spring. For the first time in hundreds of years we are seeing the people of the Middle East call for a better system for themselves. Hopefully this is going to lead to a system which will see in the emergence of of Science in Middle East there is some science being done currently, but the quantity is nothing compared to where they should be given their history. With better education for all and governments respecting the freedom of speech which is necessary for our society to prosper this is going to hopefully lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into a better life.

Anti-Vaccination Movement and gunmen

The large misinformation campaign put on by the anti-science community over the last decade has made it so that numerous diseases ranging from polio to measles and rubella have seen increased prevalance and deaths from these pathogens has needlessly increased their death rate. The anti-science community is going against all knowledge that modern biology has given us, and are constantly in their unscientific fashion using poor studies that prove nothing and going on the television and writing in popular anti-science journals, particularly Natural News, that maliciously spread lies and deceit to people who don't understand how science works. I would even argue that people who spread such tripe are committing murder.

Imagine a man who stands outside of a building stating that there are great deals and free things being given away to passer-bys on the street. People will hear it and go in to check out the great deals. However, the man outside the building is perfectly aware that as soon as someone walks in they will be immediately shot or stabbed for walking in. He is using his knowledge and the other people's lack of knowledge to kill them, even though he never pulls the gun. There is little doubt this man has committed manslaughter with his colleague inside the building, and there would be almost nothing he could defend himself to a court when he is convicted.

The same can be said of the anti-vaccination movement. They are deliberately putting people's needlessly lives at risk knowing full and well that their actions will greatly increase the probability of them getting terrible viruses that will then spread and kill millions of people.

As one friend of mine argues, they could kill more people than bin Laden did through his terrorist organizations, and I have no reason to doubt it. The weapon used by terrorists like bin Laden is fear, which is exactly the same tool that the anti-vaccination movement has used. Calling them terrorists is not a stretch if we use terrorist in its most reasonable definition, to strike terror into the hearts and minds of many, which is a form of power. Some of their leaders (like the MMR-autism scam a few years ago) have enough training in medicine to understand the difference, which makes me convinced the problem is malice and cannot be misinformation on the part of the informants. They refer to papers published by highly corrupt and dishonest people, most importantly Andrew Wakefield, and this causes mass hysteria through misinformation. If we are going to hunt for terrorists across the world, we should also work hard to end the misinformation campaign by these people because they will kill far more people than terrorists ever had if they are allowed to continue.

No one has the right to put other people needlessly at risk by spreading pathogens, either by dumping them in the water supply or walking around a town or city with an extremely contagious pathogen. No one deserves to be put in the type of danger this can cause to so many people.

Murder is not protected by the first amendment.

Manslaughter is murder.

Manslaughter does not have to be a direct action.

The anti-vaccination movement is putting billions of people in danger from being killed by pathogens that should be destroyed because as soon as one of these viruses becomes prominent it will be able to mutate and if it mutates enough the current vaccines will not work, meaning that many more lives and hundreds of billions of dollars will have to be spent before we can protect ourselves.

If that isn't manslaughter, I don't know what is.

It is the job of those of us who are scientists whether we specialize in biology or economics to counter these anti-science arguments and we need to choose which is more important, making people happy, or saving lives. For me, saving lives is always worth more than someone being unhappy they have been disproven from their pet topic, so I will not take prisoners and speak the truth about science so people understand how vaccinations save people and need to be done to enough people to prevent the outbreaks we have been seeing lately.

This also isn't theoretical, with outbreaks in measles, polio, and whooping cough on the rise currently, which is a threat to the whole world. Source