Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Priorities

(A melting-ice-sheets comment I'd posted at Brad DeLong's blog last year; I keep going back to it.)
Priorities.

How do you set them?
Which issues do you let slide, in order to work on the really important stuff?
And what if the really important stuff isn't workable?
  • Global warming
  • Peak oil
  • Vote fraud software
  • Slouching toward theocracy
  • Consistent corruption at top levels of govt
  • Corruption at newspapers; the payola punditocracy
  • Conserving nature
  • Equal rights
  • Bird flu/personal preparedness/public health
  • Improving the lot of those less fortunate
  • Social security
  • Terrorism (incl. nukes and bioterrorism)
  • Reaching talk-radio listeners who're plugging their ears eyes closed saying la-la-la-la-la
  • Acquiring leaders who demonstrate genuine leadership
  • Exposing "leaders" who don't

no answers here; just curious about what one should do, when the whole edifice is breaking apart.

for a noncontroversial example - if the carrying capacity, post-peak, is 1.5 billion less than now, where should "research to extend lifespan" fit into the priority scheme?

A good discussion; this reply in particular made sense to me:
Paul Ehrlich, who['s] been thinking about this stuff longer than many of us have been alive, has very much switched to the answer that the problems that have to be solved are changing the US political leadership and culture...
His conclusion, after trying to solve these problems for at least 40 yrs is that without putting the political/cultural management in place, nothing will happen, and that with proper political/cultural management in place the science and engineering can happen pretty fast.

3 comments:

  1. I strongly agree with Paul Ehrlich's conclusion. None of the problems facing America and Americans are going to be solvable without first wresting control of our nation's governments from the hands of "special interests", especially at the federal and state levels.

    I believe that one way to make this happen is to do all one can to eliminate the politicians who align themselves with the major parties, Republican and Democratic alike. Even good politicians (if any!) are required to toe these parties' lines in order to rise within their ranks.

    The solution, in my opinion, requires Americans to muster the courage to reject politics-as-usual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael, I agree with you completely, in theory.

    I'm just not sure what path would work, to get there. And given that we can thank the third-party voters of 2000 for much of the mess we're in now...

    Ideally we'd implement instant-runoff voting, so a third-party vote wouldn't be 'wasted'. But until we've got that, I suspect morphing a party from within is more likely to succeed.

    And if the kleptotheocrats could do this, why can't a movement of dedicated and honorable people do likewise?

    but i tell you, it's one thing to realize how badly it needs to be done, and it's another to realize how ill-suited I am to doing it. Rambo/Machiavelli I'm not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I posted in my blog, a debate between Rush Limbah and Bill Mahre is long overdue. 35 issues, posted in advance, by each one, and questions at random from the public, about those topics. They own their own topics and answer the questions, and the other then also asks questions, without making statements.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.