Monday, November 30, 2020



MESSAGE FROM THE FUTURE III

 

ME in VOICEOVER: Thinking about all the things that could have been and should have been did not help us back then and will not help us in any other problem we will be facing in the future. I was born right at the end of the 20th century, I was busy learning about other things, so Climate Change did not interest me until I was fourteen or fifteen and then when the News talked about the Paris Agreement and also President Trump being elected as US president, that there is something happening. Something, that can be prevented but probably will not, as we do not have enough people who are willing to do it. For all I know, I did not try my best, living in the US for five years, I should have done more, inspired more, tried to change more people’s opinions.

What did help us was the urgency that seemed to emerge in the years after the pandemic and the election in 2020. By far not early enough, as the damage was already irreversible but early enough so we can learn from it and thrive again, in a world in which we are coexisting on planet Earth, with every living organism it inhibits, instead of exploiting, tearing down and taking everything, it has to offer.

The first thing that we had to learn and that will always be true, is that just because we are the most powerful species on this planet, we are not entitled to anything. We have to use this power so we can develop ideas that help everyone. As Naomi Klein quoted Mr. Donald Trump in her book on page 259 “I really don’t like their policies of taking away your car, taking away your airplane flights […] or you’re not allowed to own your cows anymore”. It was statements like these, that made the journey so much harder, as it made people not only underestimate Climate Change as a whole, but also think that fighting for a greener future is taking away their life quality and only serves to punish them.

            


 

 

We had to realize that this was never about our own personal wishes and struggles. Especially, the privileged in our society had to realize not everything is about them, money does not buy everything, and they are not untouchable. The pandemic in 2020 was a great representation on how we deal with issues if they demand action from us and how our lives can be changed if we decide to listen. Depending on what part of the government or what party something is coming from, people decide if they want to believe it or not and if they want to sacrifice some of their personal freedom.
We had to realize that political affiliations should not determine our actions and if we are going to follow suggestions by the government and believing in what they are wanting us to do.

We had to realize that our media can be and is biased, also depending on where they are at on the political spectrum, which means that unilateral news consumption can be dangerous to the unity of our society. 

We had to realize that just because we have the strongest economy, the best technology and most innovative cities, we are not safe from the changes in the climate. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we needed to come to all the realizations above. 

We saw wildfires, hurricanes, and tornadoes. We saw endangered species dying out, we saw houses being destroyed by natural catastrophes, we saw drought, hunger and people losing their lives. We saw so much loss, despair, regret and most of all, realization.

 

Of course, not everyone, everywhere, this is just not how the human species works, but enough to turn this thing around and get to where we are now.

We are driving affordable electrical cars; we found an environmentally sustainable solution for the batteries that charge them.

 

We are seeing the benefits of renewable energy and have defeated oil and gas companies not only in sustainability, but also affordability, lucrativeness and job opportunities. 

We are creating more work in this sector than ever and even though there is more technology, there is still a demand on workers. 

 

We have come back to the same level of life quality, if not even more, than prior to the changes. People appreciate nature more, the outdoors, the time with their loved ones. Everything comes with a prize, but you can still drive big trucks, live in a fully air-conditioned house, get your fast food at a drive-through, it is just all happening with a good conscious and with the understanding of what we are doing and where all these things are coming from.

 

There is still a gap between rich and poor but that does not mean, there is exploitation, inequality and less life quality. It means that universal healthcare helps us being safe and healthy, that money does not determine where you go to school or what job you will have. It means that they can do whatever they want with it and travel and buy nice things, but it is not to the disadvantage of others. 

 

I can say that I live in a world in which I feel valued, I feel truly free, healthy and safe. I feel like I have clean air to breathe, I have an important part in keeping our planet clean and I make a home for the seven trillion people that will be born over the next 50,000 years. 

 

Still, I do not believe that future generations will think that we have been good ancestors. There has been so much evidence of what was coming, but we chose not to believe in it. We knew about the dangers and we still waited until the last minute to do something about it. I think we are not the worst, because we still realized the importance of the situation and turned it around, but we are definitely not a role model. 

 

To the future generations, I urge you to think critically, to choose unity over selfishness and to believe in the things that are right in front of you. You will be rewarded with something even greater, with even more great relationships, happiness and completeness. Your grandchildren have bigger shoes to fill as they will have to maintain our planet, they have to use even better technology and innovation to make the world a better and more sustainable help. To be there for people all over the globe and hopefully even make living conditions equal around the world. I wish there to be happiness and unity and a connectiveness between everyone, no matter where they are from and who they are. 





Friday, November 27, 2020

Greta on Black Friday

School strike week 119. Today is black Friday. Overconsumption is wrecking present and future living conditions and the planet itself.
Don't buy stuff you don't need.

#ClimateStrikeOnline #fridaysforfuture #schoolstrike4climate #flattenthecurve #FaceTheClimateEmergency https://t.co/rMr02n0vwT
(https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1332222374083702785?s=02)

McKibben on KSR's new novel

Kim Stanley Robinson's new book Ministry for the Future is a gift to the world--a novel pitched perfectly to this precise moment in the climate crisis.
And I'm awfully grateful to @nybooks for letting me write about it.
https://t.co/oNpYiDnwsD
(https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1332406986059681798?s=02)

The prolific science-fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, who is at heart an optimist, opens his newest novel, The Ministry for the Future, with a long set piece as bleak as it is plausible. Somewhere in a small city on the Gangetic Plain in Uttar Pradesh during the summer of 2025, Frank, a young American working for an NGO, wakes up in his room above a clinic to find that an unusually severe pre-monsoon heat wave has grown hotter still and more humid—that the conditions outside are rapidly approaching the limit of human survival. Actually, conditions inside are approaching the same level, because the power has gone out.

Frank manages to get a generator going and opens the doors of the NGO’s offices to seven or eight extended families, who cram themselves into the few rooms where creaking air conditioners knock the fatal edge off the heat. But then local thugs take both the generator and the AC unit at gunpoint. The temperature inside and out approaches 108 degrees Fahrenheit; the humidity is 60 percent. People start to die, and their bodies are taken up to the roof and left there. As night falls, Frank goes with some of the survivors to the shallow lake in the center of the city and they submerge themselves in the water, hopeful it will help them survive. It doesn’t—the lake water, too, is above body temperature, and as thirsty people drink it,

hot water in one’s stomach meant there was no refuge anywhere…. They were being poached….

People were dying faster than ever. There was no coolness to be had. All the children were dead, all the old people were dead. People murmured what should have been screams of grief.

Frank survives, barely, with a lifelong case of PTSD: “Any time he broke a sweat his heart would start racing, and soon enough he would be in the throes of a full-on panic attack.” Even a job he gets in the UK in a meat-processing plant with refrigerated rooms is not enough to keep the terror at bay. Nor the guilt, nor the anger, which become plot points of sorts in this sprawling novel. An uncountable number of Indians died in the heat wave he survived—perhaps 20 million. In the book, it marks the effective starting point of humankind’s effort to deal realistically with climate change.

And such a heat wave is not unlikely—in fact, it is all but guaranteed. We came pretty close in California in September, when temperatures even in communities near the ocean like San Luis Obispo hit 120 degrees Fahrenheit, albeit at a lower humidity. Over the last few years we’ve seen record-breaking combinations of heat and humidity in Middle Eastern cities—the heat index has approached 160 degrees Fahrenheit in places like Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and Bandar, Iran. The latest research—some of it published last summer—indicates that such heat waves will become steadily more common. As the decades pass, a belt across India, Pakistan, and the North China Plain will see temperatures past the survival point for days and weeks at a time. The heat wave that killed tens of thousands in Europe in 2003 is only a foretaste.

In taking on heat and glacial melt and fire, Robinson is writing more realistic fiction than most contemporary novelists, for whom the physical world remains a backdrop for more interior stories. We are entering a period when physical forces, and our reaction to them, will drive the drama on planet Earth. We are lucky to have a writer as knowledgeable, as sensible, and as humane as Robinson to act as a guide—he is an essential authority for our time and place, and our deliberations about the future will go better the more widely he is read, for he is offering a deeply informed view on what are quickly becoming the great questions of world politics. The New Yorker once asked if Robinson was “our greatest political novelist,” and I think the answer may well be yes. He’s not trained as a scientist, but he’s so up on the literature that he’s usually three or four years ahead of the news, and not just in the US—his sense of the Earth’s political currents, including the rise of China and India, runs deep.

Which is interesting, because Robinson first made his mark writing about a different planet. His Mars trilogy, published in the 1990s, won every science-fiction award there is. (Robinson writes long books, and they often come in groups of three.) That story begins at almost the same time as The Ministry for the Future does: a group of a hundred earthlings takes off in 2026 to colonize Mars, as conditions on their home planet begin to deteriorate. It is an epic tale of the technological effort required to “terraform” Mars—to make it habitable for humans by, say, drilling deep holes to release subsurface heat, and exploding nuclear weapons in the permafrost to start producing flowing water. Robinson’s scenarios are precisely what NASA engineers were thinking through back then: that it was only a matter of time before we colonized the red planet. But in truth the technology is secondary—his true interest, then and now, is more in political science than in science itself.The Mars trilogy is really an exercise in asking how humans could, would, and should settle an uninhabited place: how, given a blank slate, we might work out our divisions and create a society that could survive and thrive. With a Mars colony as a setting, Robinson needed to deal with only a scattered few people on an empty world and had room to address questions of human nature, human organization, and human agency that are harder to deal with on the messy, crowded, historically contingent world we actually inhabit. His careful thought in those early novels has paid off in the years since; the conceptual seedlings he nurtured on Mars he has transplanted back on Earth in his more recent work, culminating in The Ministry for the Future, which may serve as his ultimate account of how to set our Earth on a workable course.

Before diving in, however, it’s worth noting why Robinson has mostly left space behind. In the decades since the Mars trilogy appeared, the science has made it clearer that we’re not going to easily spread out into the cosmos. The visions of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk notwithstanding, even colonizing Mars will be much harder than originally envisioned by the writers of space operas and the NASA planners in the halcyon post-Apollo days—among other things, NASA probes have discovered that the red planet is carpeted in a soil containing toxic perchlorates, so you’d somehow have to decontaminate the planet before you started doing anything grander.

It has also become clear that the distances involved in interstellar travel effectively preclude colonization outside the solar system: everything from the effects of radiation to the lack of genetic diversity in any “ark” that we’d send into space would amount to crippling obstacles. As Robinson has said:


There is no Planet B, and it’s very likely that we require the conditions here on earth for our long-term health. When you don’t take these new biological discoveries into your imagined future, you are doing bad science fiction.

Indeed, he devoted an entire (and quite lovely) novel, Aurora (2015), to demonstrating why deep space colonization would be impossible. It follows the crew of an interstellar craft as they fail to inhabit a distant planet and then try, against the odds, to return to Earth, with a much-sharpened appreciation for its fragility and beauty.

The real danger of fantasizing about space travel is that it creates a moral hazard: one begins to care less about the fate of our own world. And Robinson very much wants us to focus on this world. In book after book in recent years, he has laid out the path forward for dealing with the existential crisis that climate change has clearly become.

In a trilogy of novels set in the near future in a rapidly heating Washington, D.C.—collected in 2015 in an omnibus edition titled Green Earth—the US government and the National Science Foundation are still focal points for the fight to save the planet. By 2025, in the new novel, it is a UN agency that takes the lead—“the Ministry for the Future,” formed in response to the Indian heat wave by the parties to the Paris climate accord. The ministry is located in Zurich, an often overlooked city that Robinson describes with great intimacy and affection, and is headed by Mary Murphy, an Irishwoman—she is, for my money, an accurate and beguiling composite of an actual former UN commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, and Christiana Figueres and Laurence Tubiana, the two diplomats who did more than any others to pull off those Paris talks. (That women have been at the center of climate diplomacy is perhaps less noted than it should be.)

No UN ministry, of course, can move world affairs—that waits on the interests of the powers that be. In this case, those interests come in many forms. Some countries, like India, are scared enough to try anything: Delhi launches a fleet of airplanes that ferry sulfur compounds into the atmosphere, where the particles block some incoming solar radiation, a fairly low-tech (and in the real world highly controversial) geoengineering plan to reduce the temperature.

The ministry sponsors other technological tricks, all of which have to be applied on similarly immense scales to have any effect: drilling holes to the base of Antarctic and Greenlandic glaciers to drain the meltwater collecting there so the ice sheets slow their slide into the ocean; dyeing the newly melted Arctic Ocean yellow so that it stops absorbing so much sunlight. Some schemes work better than others, but by themselves they’re nowhere near enough, and indeed The Ministry for the Future mostly brushes past them, more concerned with the changes in the world economy and governance that must come

Such shifts are opposed by entrenched interests like fossil fuel executives and the status quo politicians. And so those interests are targeted by a terror group, the Children of Kali, which arises in India to avenge the victims of the heat wave, and also by a dark-ops wing of the UN ministry itself. These operatives are clever: in one of the more enjoyable interludes in the book, they manage to take over Davos, subjecting the global elite to an endless series of seminars and workshops on global poverty and environmental disruption. Meanwhile, on what will henceforth be known as Crash Day, the terrorists send swarms of drones into the engines of jets around the world, downing them. Some are the private jets of plutocrats, but not all—the deaths of innocent people are real, if limited. As a result, far fewer people are willing to fly, except in the growing fleet of solar-powered dirigibles and airships that slowly circle the Earth.

Similarly, vast, smoke-belching container ships are torpedoed by futuristic “pebble-mob” missiles that can overwhelm defenses by sheer force of numbers. They are replaced by photovoltaic clipper ships that harvest both sun and wind as they make their more stately way across the ocean. (Murphy travels in one from Europe to Florida, making the obvious point to anyone who’s lived through the pandemic that as long as you have your laptop you can as easily work from the deck of a boat as from an office.) But again, these technologies—all in various stages of development today—aren’t the real salvation.

That lies instead in the various changes that start rippling through societies. Minister Murphy’s most important interventions are with the four or five crucial central bankers around the world; they’re persuaded not only to tax carbon but to issue a “carbon coin” as a reward for actions that keep oil and gas in the ground or sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. This “carboni” begins to replace the dollar as the underpinning of the global economy, and as that happens, neoliberalism—really capitalism itself—begins to bend a little in its dictates.

“The euthanasia of the rentier class,” as Keynes called it, begins; more and more of the uberwealthy find themselves compelled to take a serious haircut, left with tens of millions in place of their billions in increasingly stranded assets. Popular movements break out everywhere—debt strikes by students, and then by the debtor nations of the global south; uprisings in China of migratory workers long denied residence permits in the cities where they work, who take to the streets by the millions and force some basic changes from the Chinese Communist Party:

There was so much going on, such a spasm of revolts occurring spontaneously (if it was spontaneous!) all over the world, that some historians said it was another 1848…. Coincidence? Conspiracy? World spirit, Zeitgeist in action? Who knew? All they knew for sure was that it was happening, things were falling apart.

And when things fall apart, new things can emerge. It is here that Robinson is at his best—he has a head full of all the hopeful experiments on our planet, the ones that run a little counter to the prevailing wisdom. For instance, there’s a tidy discourse on the town of Mondragón in Basque country that for decades has seen a successful and fascinating experiment in cooperative control of industry; there’s an informed account of the state of Kerala in the south of India, where a low GDP coexists with high quality of life; there’s a nod to Modern Monetary Theory and the idea that deficits might not matter, and to Vandana Shiva, an activist and pioneer in organic agriculture who has long argued that local agriculture is significantly healthier for people in developing countries.

Robinson also understands the blockchain technology underlying currencies like bitcoin, and the ways it might stop the wealthy from hiding their cash in the Caymans; he knows what the agronomist Wes Jackson is up to at the Land Institute in Kansas, where they’re figuring out how to grow wheat as a perennial, not an annual crop; and he’s followed the French law intended to increase carbon in farm soils. He’s got a handle on rotational grazing and on wild oyster farming, and on a thousand and one other possibilities. He knows that—pace Margaret Thatcher—there is an alternative to capitalism, or really millions of alternatives, each designed for its own place. If only the system can be moved.

And it turns out that climate change—as Naomi Klein posited in her great book This Changes Everything—is the tool for moving it, the crisis that finally forces us (because chemistry and physics simply won’t be denied, the way morality and justice can be) to deal with our inequality and our unjust history and the whole wretched mess we’ve managed to make of things in the early twenty-first century. Robinson’s scheme is not utopian, it’s anti-dystopian, realist to its core: there’s still money and still nation-states and still central banks, and change comes from riot and occupation and protest (grahasatya, he calls it, or force peace, in a realpolitik nod to Gandhi)—but “it will be legislation that does it in the end, creating a new legal regime that is fair, just, sustainable, and secure…. The best Plan B will emerge from the multitudes.”

In The Ministry for the Future, it all kind of works. Yes, there’s a great and savage depression, and ongoing ecological wreckage, especially in the acidified oceans. But by the 2050s the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has begun to drop, and fairly fast—down five parts per million per year, maybe even headed back to the 350 mark that the climate scientist Jim Hansen set as the boundary for some kind of civilizational chance.

Is this possible, outside the confines of fiction?

I think it might be: the emergence, for instance, of Greta Thunberg and a hundred other high school–age leaders, militantly demanding change, seems like it could easily have been a plot point instead of a reality. The youth of the Sunrise Movement and their demand for a sweeping Green New Deal exemplify the kind of change Robinson imagines. The rapid development of cheap renewable energy makes a quick change in that direction technically and economically possible, even at this late date.

But part of me fears that Robinson underestimates not just the staying power of the status quo but also the odds that when things get really bad, we will react really badly. It’s possible that a killer heat wave striking India might begin to wake up the conscience of the world; it’s also possible that it makes the emergence of the next round of Drumpfs and Bolsonaros and Modis more likely.

If the Covid pandemic is a kind of early test of our ability to respond to crisis, some parts of the world seem to have passed and others seem to have failed. Can the US achieve the kind of unity that might make it an ally in this greatest of fights? In Robinson’s novel, the valiant people of Hong Kong not only hold off Beijing but manage to help change the flavor of its government—at the moment, that river seems to be flowing the other way. And the change that must come must come rapidly: even one more wasted decade may be enough to put us past the point where the momentum of global warming can really be checked.

This is precisely why one hopes that this book is read widely—that Robinson’s audience, already large, grows by an order of magnitude. Because the point of his books is to fire the imagination, to remind us that the great questions of our lives are not just about love and relationships, but also about politics and economics.

He ends with another set piece, this one charming. Mary Murphy, retired, has returned to Zurich after a dirigible tour of the planet, which has been increasingly rewilded as populations begin to shrink and human settlements are purposefully taken off the map. From the air the passengers have watched herds on the Serengeti, caribou streaming across a reviving Arctic. She has begun to fall for the gentle and quiet captain of the blimp, and the two of them now go out together to wander the streets of the Swiss city for Fasnacht, the pre-Lenten masquerade. Men with alphorns play Fanfare for the Common Man, a steel drum band offers a Trinidadian tune, some Andean Indians in serapes play the panpipes. Mary looks at this world, which she has done much to save, and she thinks:
That there is no other home for us than here. That we will cope no matter how stupid things get. That all couples are odd couples. That the only catastrophe that can’t be undone is extinction. That we can make a good place. That people can take fate in their hands. That there is no such thing as fate.

==

Established in 2025, the purpose of the new organization was simple: To advocate for the world's future generations and to protect all living creatures, present and future. It soon became known as the Ministry for the Future, and this is its story.

From legendary science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson comes a vision of climate change unlike any ever imagined.

Told entirely through fictional eye-witness accounts, The Ministry For The Future is a masterpiece of the imagination, the story of how climate change will affect us all over the decades to come.

Its setting is not a desolate, post-apocalyptic world, but a future that is almost upon us - and in which we might just overcome the extraordinary challenges we face.

It is a novel both immediate and impactful, desperate and hopeful in equal measure, and it is one of the most powerful and original books on climate change ever written.

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

The Future of Healthcare

             The problem with today’s healthcare system I would largely because of the actions and attitudes of both the insurance and corporate cultures.  According to a study done by the New York Times one part of the problem is the costs for administration and billing in the healthcare, which have become so convoluted that an entire profession has been created specifically for a doctor to billing insurance company.  In the article by Austin Frakt, he talks about how the reason a solution to this problem has not been implemented is because it would impact the bottom line for the corporations who have a large stake in keeping the status quo.  Austin’s solution to the problem I think is the best way to go which is to make our administrative system simpler, which I think is wonderful, because most of the time when politicians talk about healthcare, they usually suggest something like single-payer which I don’t think would take in America.  Another problem with our healthcare system is the prices we pay compared to European countries are a lot higher, and while nobody has any good solutions for this our current method of paying hospitals for every service regardless of whether the patient needed it is something that needs to be addressed.  The next problem in our healthcare system is probably the most obvious which fraud and abuse.  While there are already strict laws against these instances, I also think we should address why they happen to begin with at all.  In my opinion these are signs that there is something wrong with our current healthcare system and we need to address them.  Of course, there is also how the current pandemic is effecting healthcare as well in that the government has relaxed several of its regulations regarding telemedicine in order to both keep doctors safe and give people who need it medical advice.  The Covid-19 pandemic will change our healthcare system I think in several ways one of which is that we are seeing a rise in telemedicine, which I think is determinantal to our healthcare system as our physicians will be able to properly diagnose their patients.  Also, I believe that it will increase our opioid crisis as doctors I think will only be able to act on what their patients tell them, and so it will be easier I think for drug addicts to acquire more legal drugs.

I have commented on Carolin and Patricks post, and I should have 45 points total this semester.



Zoom recordings, Fall 2020

 NOV

Mon 2, P$51VDFB

Wed 4, WM6S@51^

Mon 9, 2J.3!9Kp

Wed 11, S@%%1gJF

Mon 16, 6G0nuMk=

Wed 18, GmXL$7X4

Mon 23, 3%pdQF!e

Wed 25, q9&k.EeL 


OCT

Mon 5, yk&!TY3Z

Wed 7, l1?=pSQ1

Mon 12, Ez&wEQN3

Mon 19, *9KSX%AA

Wed 21, A#^E%ey4

M 26, 358*f3h5

W 28, 2g8Ti+Bq

 

 

AUG/SEP

Mon 24th Recording (Passcode: 7w**R36*)

Wed 26 Recording (Passcode: Fj0BR+DQ)

Mon 31 Recording Passcode: W8X.m55@

Wed 2, *TwG8QFX

Wed 9, PJ5W#Y?@


Mon 14, S1E.ycx#

Wed 16, =Jin2&6K

Mon 21, 0cB+4jk#

Wed 23, !vsU7zC#

Mon 28, iq37bp$0  concluding Jahren

Wed 30, =mW1bdcK


The Pandemic and how I link it to the environment


I think this year and the ongoing pandemic have changed a lot of my views on people, and unfortunately a lot of them were not positive. I will probably try and get into this more in my Final Blogpost, as I have more space there but I kind of wanted to bring up Covid and link the attitude of some people to their blindness to the Climate Crisis. 

This year like none before really showed how people respond to really visible and drastic obstacles. With the Environment a lot of people say that it is something that does not apply to them yet, they do not want to be bothered by changes in their everyday life to possible help out the environment and reduce their carbon footprint. A lot of these people have the same attitude when it comes to Covid. It is an inconvenience to wear a mask, they listen to sources that tell them that the virus is a hoax and it has not affected their life immensely enough to make them think otherwise. A lot of the people I know had Covid and since their had a mild reaction, they do not think it is harmful to anyone. If we ask someone who has lost both of their parents to covid, kids that are college students like us and all of a sudden their mom and dad is gone, they probably do not have the same opinion. 

Obviously, I am generalizing with this but I do see a trend of people being selfish and taking life and earth for granted, just because they see that a little bit of their freedom could be taken away. They do not see the benefit, the greater good they do for society or the planet and I get to the point where I do not want to be around these people anymore. We need to start caring about others, as much as we care about ourselves and the people close to us and we need to give things the benefit of the doubt. Educate ourselves on topics and maybe consider more than just one news source...

I think in some way Covid is an invisible force that is endangering a lot of people and is still not taking seriously. Basically just like Climate Change just in a faster and more evident form, but still not big or important enough for people to care.

This is just kind of a dump of thought and I hope in my final blogpost I am able to elaborate or put it into a different perspective again. 

Conversations Around The Dinner Table

I've talked a lot about my opinion on how we can use messaging to our advantage. I am realizing that my view on how to go about this has been a bit too cautious, considering the emergency situation this climate crisis is. So, while I still believe finding compassion and patience for the other side in order to better understand their point of view is important (to later bring them over to our side), I want to place a greater emphasis than I did before on the need for a strong, blunt, and honest stance regarding what the problem is, where it comes from, and what needs to be done about it. We shouldn't fear stepping on people's toes when we are simply telling the truth. With that being said, how do we use conversation to get more people on our side? Well, who are we talking to?

Thanksgiving is tomorrow, meaning many of us will be hanging out with family/friends (either in person or over Zoom). If your family is anything like mine, where there is food there is lively conversation, or even debates, about current events. These conversations with close family and friends, if done tactfully, are often the most important opportunities we have to make a difference. We usually don't go around talking about our political, social, or environmental views as freely with strangers or acquaintances as we do with our close social circle. It is in these conversations where opinions are shared, and sometimes even changed. If you have someone in your life who is a climate skeptic, it can be tricky to find that balance between urgent messaging and patient listening. I found this opinion article on CNN today about exactly how to do this, which I found helpful for myself so I thought I'd share. According to geologist and Yale Climate Connections writer, Karin Kirk, here are a few tips (Which I have summarized and added my own reactions to):

1.  Understand your own motives. Why is this important to you? Why do you need to share this information? What do you want this person to do with this information? Sorting this out can help your message be clearer and can help to avoid reaching a dead end in a conversation when we only argue about the science and the facts of climate change. 

I think getting our facts in order for a conversation is really important, but I also agree that reflecting on the root of our motivations to fight climate change can help steer the conversation toward something much deeper and more moving—such as wanting to preserve the natural beauty of the earth, or wanting future generations to inherit a habitable planet. These kinds of conversations touch the heart, which is where we just might find common ground. 

2.  Persuasion is not the goal. Instead, it is the side effect. Treat the conversation like an opportunity to connect and hear what the other person has to say. 

I like this point. By telling someone that I am interested in hearing what they have to say, I have found that they often return the favor. No one likes to feel like they are being preached at, but they do like to feel heard. I like what Kirk said about persuasion being a side effect of a well executed conversation.

3.  "Don't spend too much time arguing with people that you're never going to change their mind." 

No need to summarize that point! While I think it is possible for anyone to change their mind, it is up to the person whether or not they are willing to in the first place. And some people really have made up their minds about climate change, and simply won't hear what we have to say. So, I get what Kirk is saying here, especially when we can spend time having productive conversations with people who are just on the edge of our side or at the very least willing to hear us out.

I may have harped too much on conversation/messaging this semester, but I really do think it is our most powerful tool in our fight against climate change. What would you add to this list? Any tactics you have learned in your climate change conversations with people? 

----


Weekly Summary:


11/25—This blog post

11/24—Comment on “Leave No Trace (Final Presentation and Essay)

11/22—Comment on “The Value of Hope - A Message for My Classmates”


Grand Semester Total: 67


 Cancer and Corruption


It pains me to hear that a peer and classmate has been diagnosed with a disease I am very familiar with. Ed’s essay and video on hope got me thinking about how many other people must remain optimistic and hopeful about the unfairness of life. I remember being hopeful for my mother who passed when I was 17 after fighting for five years with a disease she did not deserve. It's hard to find hope when something like that happens, it can even make a person lose faith, but what i took form that experience is that i can still be hopeful for other people and fight to make change for others so that they don't have to suffer in the same way. 

I wish our government wasn’t so corrupt that we prioritize profits over the suffering of human beings. A disease such as cancer should have been eradicated a long time ago instead we have created an entire economy revolving around oncology. I believe it is one in three people who will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetimes, and although this is a scary number, it is even more scary that our government and many other world governments see these numbers and think “wow look at all those people we can make money off of” The sadness and grief i felt for my mother quickly turned into rage and hatred for our country and any pharmaceutical company that controls it. Why do we not prioritize science so that we may find cures to such diseases? Why do we charge tens of thousands of dollars for cancer treatments when much of our country doesn’t even have $700 in the bank for a rainy day? The inhumanity I've seen in our healthcare industry is mortifying. This cruelty is what has inspired me to become more vocal about my opinions and pursue a career in making policies to challenge these corporations who would rather us die than lose their profits. 

We all share sympathy for those with cancer and we all acknowledge that it is something no one should have to experience, and yet so much of our country would still oppose giving free healthcare to those who are already suffering. There is no reason a person should have to go into debt because of medical bills. My father went into the emergency room for an x-ray and some blood tests not too long ago and they had the audacity to send a bill of over $10,000. This type of price gouging is killing people every day, those who refuse to see a doctor because they are scared of the bill, those who can’t afford insulin or other life saving drugs, and people like me who don’t want to have to pay $60 for an emergency inhaler. 

Now this brings me to the opiate crisis we’ve been facing for years. For decades we have just given pills out like candy and treating addicts like criminals. This benefits corporations in two ways: big pharma gets to make money off of prescribing pills people don’t need, then the private prisons get to make money off of the addicts they’ve created, raking in more money with the help of our government. We allow thousands of people to die each year from opiates and for many people they are not even effective at treating pain and only produce feelings of nausea (my mother being an example). And yet we still outlaw marijuana, an effective pain treating medication that also cures nausea, not because it is a dangerous drug, but because it is dangerous to the profits of corporations. 

I still have hope that we can make the changes necessary to save lives and produce a science driven society. This election proved that much of the country is tired of our “war on drugs” and that a majority of us are on board with free healthcare. I urge you all to remain vocal and hopeful about fixing the injustices we face within our own country. Now if we could just get enough scientists and scholars into positions of power...



semester total: 55


The Value of Hope - A Message for My Classmates

My final presentation is on Hope and consists of the video and post below. In putting this together, I had a jumble of thoughts that I felt the need to express in my Grandfather Philosophy video series. Together the four videos amount to my Thanksgiving message to my family and friends, which I am sharing with you, in the event you have any interest.

GP #14 - Seeing a Better World (9:35) Understanding that it is your mode of thinking that ties hope and fear and gratitude together. https://youtu.be/tdIqktOtaBs  

GP #15 – The Value of Hope (18:43) How to use the positive emotion of hope to be happy and successful.  https://youtu.be/cYjZeuyofw8

 GP # 16 – Que Sera Sera (9:14) How to overcome the negative emotion of fear and stop worrying. https://youtu.be/Ony0UoaSPCk

 GP #17 – On Being Thankful (9:24) How the positive emotion of gratitude can help you be happier.  https://youtu.be/rXluQbp7tFI 

 



The Philosophical History of Hope    

Hope has a long history in philosophy. There is an excellent article on hope in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Most of this lecture is taken directly from it. It traces the philosophical history of hope from the ancient philosophers, through the Christian treatment of hope, to the 17th and 18th century philosophers, and on to the existentialists and pragmatists. That is a journey I am not prepared to take. But I want to highlight a few things we would see along the way.

There is a standard definition or account of hope in analytic philosophy. Its focus is on two criteria of hope, a desire for an outcome and a belief in that outcome’s possibility. These criteria are independently necessary and jointly sufficient for ‘hope that….’ The object of hope must be desired by the hoper, and the object of hope must fall within a range of physical possibility which includes the improbable but excludes the certain and the merely logically possible.

So under this definition, you can’t hope for something that you believe is not possible, or that is certain. I suppose we’d classify the first as just wishful thinking. Only the belief of the hoping person about the possibility of the object is relevant, independently of whether this belief is true: a person can hope for an object they believe to be possible even if the object is in fact impossible.

Of course, this definition is picked to death, and discussing all the criticisms is beyond this lecture, but a couple of points need to be mentioned.

One concern is that the standard account fails to explain how hope can have special motivating force in difficult circumstances, especially when the probability of the desired outcome is low. This objection is based on the idea that hope is closely connected to our agency. One writer claims that even in cases where we cannot bring anything about to promote the hoped-for end, hope is “a way of positively and expansively inhabiting one’s agency”, and our “energy  … is  oriented toward the future.”

Another writer argues that we should consider two more elements in addition to belief and desire or attraction: first, the agent must see or treat their belief about the possibility of the outcome’s occurring as licensing hopeful activities, i.e., as not advising against some specific activities. Second, the agent must treat their attraction to the outcome as a practical reason to engage in the activities characteristic of hope.

Furthermore, hope can have intrinsic value even where there is no instrumental value; i.e., where hoping cannot contribute to bringing about the desired object.  In one writer’s view, this intrinsic value pertains to hope because hoping involves mental imaging. Mental imaging is pleasurable in itself. Hope has epistemic value because it increases one’s self-understanding. And hope has intrinsic worth because it is constitutive of love towards others and towards oneself, which are intrinsically valuable activities. It is in virtue of mental imaging that hope is intimately connected to love, because spending mental energy in thinking about the well-being of another person is constitutive of loving them.

For me, I am taking as my working definition of hope as the standard account plus a recognition of the instrumental and intrinsic value of hoping. The noun hope is a desire for an outcome and a belief in that outcome’s possibility, where the object of hope falls within a range of physical possibility which includes the improbable but excludes the certain and the merely logically possible. The verb hope, to hope that … is a license to engage in hopeful activities. It is a practical reason to engage in the activities characteristic of hope. And it makes you feel better.

The history of hope in philosophy begins with the ancient Greeks. In early Greek thought, hope is often seen as an attitude of those who have insufficient knowledge or are easily swayed by wishful thinking. It thus has a primarily negative reputation as an attitude that (at least potentially) misleads actions and agents. The questionable nature of hope is seen with the myth of Pandora. It is an origin myth, an explanation for the beginning of something. It explains why there is evil in the world. Pandora was the first human woman. She was a curse of Zeus on mankind. He had punished Prometheus for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to humans, and he decided to punish mankind as well. He (or Hermes) made her out of earth and water. Hermes gave her “a bitch’s mind and a knavish nature.” He gave her the gift of speech to tell lies, and the mind and nature of a treacherous dog. Other gods gave her talents; i.e., beauty, charm, music, sex appeal, and also curiosity and persuasion. Pandora means “all gifts.” When she married, Zeus gave her a beautiful jar (mistranslated in the 16th century as “box”) but forbid her opening it, which he knew she would because of her nature and her curiosity. When she did, out came ghostly creatures; disease, poverty, misery, sadness, death, and all the evils of the world. Everything escaped the jar but Hope. Man had lived without worry until woman opened the jar. Can you see the comparison to the story to Eve and the apple and the consequences?

Why did Hope stay in the jar? One common story is that it was Zeus’s will. He wanted people to suffer in order to understand that they shouldn’t disobey the gods. In some versions of the myth, Hope leaves the jar and touches the wounds created by the evils. In some it remains in the jar separate from the evils and is good by comparison. There are many competing interpretations of why Hope remained in the jar: was it to keep hope available for humans or, rather, to keep hope from man? Is Hope consequently to be regarded as good (“a comfort to man in his misery and a stimulus rousing his activity”) or as evil (“idle hope in which the lazy man indulges when he should be working honestly for his living”). This is a question which philosophers answer differently.   

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle present generally positive attitudes toward hope. Socrates describes “pleasures of anticipation”, that is, expectations of future pleasures, that are called hopes. One commentator argues, in the case of such pleasures of anticipation, what we enjoy at present is only a thought. As there can be a discrepancy between the thought that we enjoy and what is in fact going to happen, the pleasure can be true—in which case it seems appropriate to say that the corresponding hope can be rationally endorsed—or false. Plato also presents hope as essential to human agency. Aristotle connects hope to the virtue of courage. He says:

The coward, then, is a despairing sort of person; for he fears everything. The brave man, on the other hand, has the opposite disposition; for confidence is the mark of a hopeful disposition.” Thus, even though not every hopeful person is courageous, every courageous person is hopeful. Hopefulness creates confidence, which, if derived from the right sources, can lead to the virtue of courage.

It seems to me that these three are recognizing both the instrumental and intrinsic value of hope.

Hope receives a less favorable treatment by the Stoic philosophers. Seneca emphasizes hope’s relation to fear.* He writes that “[t]hey are bound up with one another, unconnected as they may seem. Widely different though they are, the two of them march in unison like a prisoner and the escort he is handcuffed to. Fear keeps pace with hope. Nor does their so moving together surprise me; both belong to a mind in suspense, to a mind in a state of anxiety through looking into the future. Both are mainly due to projecting our thoughts far ahead of us instead of adapting ourselves to the present.”

According to Seneca, we should avoid both fear and hope and instead focus on the present and cultivate tranquility of the soul.

Hope plays a large role in Christian philosophy and theology. Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas analyze hope as one of the most central virtues of a believer: Hope, precisely in virtue of its capacity to justify action in a way which is not bound to knowledge, is a part of rational faith. I am going to skip over this. If you want to know more, go to the Stanford article.

In 17th and 18th-century philosophy, hope is discussed by most philosophers as a part of their general theories of motivation and cognition, often discussed as a “passion”, i.e., as a fundamentally non-cognitive attitude (even though it might have a belief component). This implies a moral psychology which classifies emotions and desires together as passions that generate action, of which hope is usually conceived as a species. Except for Spinoza, the philosophers of this period accepted some version of the standard account, that hope is based on uncertainty in belief together with a representation of an object as desirable. As a result, hope was seen as a motivating factor in human agency that is neutral, as it can lead to both rational and irrational action.  

According to Descartes, hope is a weaker form of confidence. It consists in a desire (a representation of an outcome to be both good for us and possible) together with a disposition to think of it as likely but not certain. This means that hope and anxiety always accompany each other. 

Spinoza defines the passion, the emotion of hope, as a form of pleasure or joy that is mingled with sadness (due to the uncertainty of the outcome. In contrast to more modern definitions, Spinoza distinguishes the pleasure that is involved in hope from desire. Hope is thus not necessarily connected to desire, but rather a way in which the mind is affected by the idea of a future event. In contrast to Descartes, Spinoza understands hope as fundamentally irrational. He argues that it must be the result of false belief, inasmuch as it does not correctly represent that everything is governed by necessity. Additionally, Spinoza describes hope as one of the causes of superstition, especially as it is always accompanied by fear. Such fear necessarily precludes it from being intrinsically good. This is also the reason why we should attempt to make ourselves independent from hope.

I am going to conclude my look at the philosophical history of hope in the 17th and 18th century, skipping Hume and Kant. For philosophers after Kant, the role of hope is disputed. There were two distinct approaches. On one hand, there were authors like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus who rejected hope as expression of a misguided relationship to the world that is unable to face the demands of human existence. On the other hand, there were authors like Kierkegaard Marcel who saw hope to be a means to overcome the limitations of ordinary experience.

*The connection between hope and fear is also expressed by Spinoza. From the Ethics: Hope is an inconstant pleasure, arising from the idea of something past or future, whereof we to a certain extent doubt the issue ( E3DefEm.12). Fear is an inconstant pain arising from the idea, of something past or future, whereof we to a certain extent doubt the issue (E3DefEm.13). Explanation.--From these definitions it follows, that there is no hope unmingled with fear, and no fear unmingled with hope. For he, who depends on hope and doubts concerning the issue of anything, is assumed to conceive something, which excludes the existence of the said thing in the future; therefore he, to this extent, feels pain; consequently, while dependent on hope, he fears for the issue. Contrariwise he, who fears, in other words doubts, concerning the issue of something which he hates, also conceives something which excludes the existence of the thing in question; to this extent he feels pleasure, and consequently to this extent he hopes that it will turn out as he desires.

Confidence is pleasure arising from the idea of something past or future, wherefrom all cause of doubt has been removed (E3DefEm.14). Despair is pain arising from the idea of something past or future, wherefrom all cause of doubt has been removed (E3DefEm.15).  Explanation.--Thus confidence springs from hope, and despair from fear, when all cause for doubt as to the issue of an event has been removed: this comes to pass, because man conceives something past or future as present and regards it as such, or else because he conceives other things, which exclude the existence of the causes of his doubt. For, although we can never be absolutely certain of the issue of any particular event it may nevertheless happen that we feel no doubt concerning it. For we have shown, that to feel no doubt concerning a thing is not the same as to be quite certain of it. Thus it may happen that we are affected by the same emotion of pleasure or pain concerning a thing past or future, as concerning the conception of a thing present….