This is actually the March blogroll, but I have not actually had the time to make the post until now. The best laid plans…
How convenient it is to have people on hand to scrutinise your blog posts. Both The Pedant General at Infinitives Unsplit and Clarice have been taking me to task recently, for woolly thinking, careless throwaways and gaping leaps of logic. Banter here has inspired dear Clarice to update her site at Conceptual Reality to a WordPress blog. She’s already taken a few people to task, namely those that ask for kisses, idolise iPods or watch Star Trek. Perhaps that’s why she’s been quiet at this place.
Doctor Crippen the NHS blog doctor is compelling. Several friends and members of my family are doctors of varying specialisms. I keep forwarding his posts onto them, and his dissection of the NHS management culture is truly clinical.
Both Tim Worstall and The Daily Dish are both well established, and hardly need my endorsement to boost their statistics… However, I read them both daily, and they are always linking to interesting pieces elsewhere. Furthermore, Tim has pioneered the weekly Britblog Round-up, which has been a primary channel for people coming here. Cheers Tim!
Author: Robert (Page 302 of 328)
I’ve just been at an interesting lecture by Mark Lynas, run by the WWF as part of Edinburgh’s International Science Festival. The talk was titled ‘The End of the World by Degrees’, and charted how the global climate and ecosystems would change – and get progressively less hospitable for life – as the average global temperature rose, one degree at a time.
What was interesting was how the human disaster unfolded, not so much through a single catastrophe that wipes out millions of people in a single event, but how much the systems upon which our economies are based are slowly undermined. Rivers will dry up along with any industry based upon them, for example. The insurance market will slowly decline as flooding destroys property. The rest of the financial system crumbles soon after.
Although the subject of the talk was what happens if temperatures continue to rise, the commentary from the audience was of course all about politics, and forcing a downward trend in CO2 emmissions. Mark’s suggestion was that we should treat the ecological crisis as something akin to war, where people have to remain stoical despite (carbon) rationing, and the nature of the economy is drastically altered in order to mobilise the change. How much more positive than our current ‘War on Terror’.
Also telling is how much of the problem comes from what I can only describe as human stupidity, the inability to see past the end of one’s own nose. The fact that people still need to be told to conserve energy, for example by buying energy saving lightbulbs, is a case in point. The bulbs save you money even in the short term: How come everyone doesn’t have them? That we depend so much on oil (expensive, under the ground, in foreign countries) when we could generate a vast amount of energey from the sun, wind and water, is quite ridiculous. If it is impractical to create the infrastructure via the market alone, then surely the government needs to change the market – if only temporarily – to ensure this stupidity comes to an end.
Mark’s ‘state of emergency’ idea holds a certain fascination for me in this case (although I know that is a classic tactic of a proto-totalitarian state: everyone believes they would make a wonderful benevolent dictator). He made the point that carbon-rationing (Domestic Tradable Quotas) would actually have the effect of making many people, especially the poor, better off. Co-operation within the community to produce food (rather than buying it from Tesco) and travelling on foot and bicycle means heathier people living in a friendlier community. Strangely, a more local outlook could help on a global scale.
A bleaker point came from a member of the audience, who outed the elephant in the room: Humans are the problem. Although the current unprecedented rise in average temperatures would eventually destroy the human race, the earth as a life-bearing planet would persist and survive. Ice-ages and the melting of the ice-caps is nothing new, geologically speaking.
I was interested to hear Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok on BBC Radio 4’s Start The Week yesterday, claiming that there exists a Paradox of anti-Semitism, in which the very fact of persecution has meant that Jewish people have grouped together to preserve their culture, something they may not have otherwise done.
He makes an interesting point, but I was not convinced that he is not simply stating a truism, or a solopsim, or both. To what extent is contemporary Jewish identity shaped by the Holocaust? if those events have now become a part of the Jewish culture or narrative then that does not mean that Judaism required a Holocaust in order to become whole.
1. Jewish culture is valuable;
2. Jewish culture includes a Holocaust; therefore
3. The Holocaust is valuable.
I’m pretty sure the logic is flawed there. Simply because Jewish identity was strengthened among those who avoided persecution, that does not mean that an alternative would not also have been strong. Indeed, one tragedy of the genocide is the lament for the ‘lost culture,’ the one that would have manifested itself had the Nazis not have perpetrated their evil.
On a related point, a friend of mine commented recently that the attacks of 11th September 2001 have made the world a more politicised place, with more people engaging in politics and in political dialogue. As a catalyst for this, 9/11 would therefore be a positive thing!
Again, I’m not sure one event can take credit for this politicisation, and in any case, the nature of politics is surely related to the idea of change… a response to events, a human desire to make things different. How big does the silver lining have to be, in order for us to tolerate the rain-cloud? In the case of the Holocaust, surely the cloud is so big and offensive, no amount silver-lining could cause any kind of ethical dilemma that Dan Cohn-Sherbok dubs a ‘paradox’.
I have yet to read the book however, so perhaps I am being a reactionary, psyco-analysing the book’s four word title.
The same friend cited the rise in people motivated to write a blog, as a manifestation of this increased politicisation. I wonder how other bloggers feel about this? To what extent have world events motivated them to write? How would political blogging be different if 9/11 had not happened? Would we have asked the same questions?
Another entry in my occassional photo-blog series, chronicling preposterous headlines in the press. I spotted the following headline in today’s Metro newspaper, Scottish central-belt edition.
Apparently, Scottish captain and football pundit Barry Ferguson has been opining on how Tommy Burns, the assistant coach for the national team, will fare in his latest challenge.
Barry backs Burns to beat skin cancer
Fantastic alliteration… but otherwise totally crazy. As the photo shows, the story is at the back of the newspaper, on the sports pages. Should we act on Barry’s tip, and place a bet? Ferguson’s extensive medical knowledge is evident in these choice quotes:
‘He is a great guy and everyone gets on well with him … I’ve not had the best of seasons, but Tommy told me recently that I’m a good enough player to get through this. Little things like that mean a lot – and show that Tommy’s a top man.’
That’s good to know, since only miserable bastards actually die of cancer. The ‘top men’ always pull through… Is it really the job of tabloid newspapers to boost the morale of football fans in this dishonest manner?
CuriousHamster has been musing about ID cards again, as peers continue to argue with the government over whether the cards will truly be ‘voluntary’, if citizens are required to register for one when they renew their passport. He gives the dictionary definition of ‘voluntary’, but neglects to make an important point about the definition. If you do something voluntarily, then you are under no obligation to continue to do it, if you should change your mind. I am on the Organ Donor Register, but I could ring them up and remove my details if I wanted to.
But ministers say [ID Cards] will already be “voluntary”, because it is not compulsory to have a passport.
True, it is not compulsory to have a passport (at least, unless you work for the Foreign Office), and I can hand mine back to the issuing agency, the UKPA, at any time I choose. Since ID cards will be also be ‘voluntary’, I therefore presume I will be able to return mine to the Home Office, when it arrives along with my renewed, biometric passport…