Worthwhile places

There is no excuse ever to be bored with the wealth of good opportunities online. Chances are that if we feel that way, we are wasting our time on all the trivia that is there as well. Two things crossed my inbox today that made it worthwhile. One was the mid=week posting of the amazing Maria Popova’s Brain Pickings, a weekly newsletter full of excerpts and wonderful children’s illustrations on many important themes - frequently climate related. Today’s relates to a book called The Songs of Trees, which already resides on my Ipad. As she says:

“It is in such lyrical prose and with an almost spiritual reverence for trees that Haskell illuminates his subject — the masterful, magical way in which nature weaves the warp thread of individual organisms and the weft thread of relationships into the fabric of life”

The book is a journey through time and space, where the writer focuses on trees in various locations and references how they influence their surroundings. I haven’t quite finished it, but it is definitely a keeper and you can find it here - or as Brain Pickings usually does, go to the public library.

The other was an excellent podcast featuring the climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe. I like that when she is asked, as a resident of Texas, whether she is a Democrat or a Republican, she replies, “I am a Canadian.” The video, featured on Climate One was useful in reminding us how to communicate. Hayhoe doesn’t waste time with serious climate deniers, but she has lots of time for the skeptical. She also says that we respond to change based on our values and these come not only from the mind, but also from the heart. I also like her translation of “Dominion” in the book of Genesis - as “responsibility”.

And she is proud of her work on Science Moms, which focuses on facts and other excellent resources for mothers and grandmothers.

The podcasts are recorded live and subsequently posted and you can see some good ones here. Katherine Hayhoe also has a new book coming our that I’ll add to my Ipad Collection, You can find it here.

Climate change and your Canadian vote

There are differences in several analyses of party platforms. Promises are usually aspirational but they do reveal hopes that lead to actions.

You can view the CBC’s analysis here.

MacLean’s Magazine has comparisons here.

The Public Service Alliance has weighed in here

There is one set you can deal with rather quickly. The PPC party doesn’t believe that climate change is caused by humans. Let’s hope members don’t live too close to water, trees, or certain locations with high temperatures.

Bad Thinking

I spent an hour on Labour Day attending a webinar presented by The Philosopher, entitled When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People. It was good enough to download Steven Nadler’s Book by the same name. It was a bit less easy to access a philosopher in Plato or Aristotle’s Day but this one came in an instant and was a quick read.

The writer is concerned about current American Thinking - or perhaps the lack of it, which he finds not only perplexing but even dangerous with epidemic proportions. Beliefs like denial of climate change as a hoax, conspiracy theories and a election fraud can’t be blamed just on lack of education - though poor education is a factor. A recent survey revealed that a third did not know that Auschwitz was a concentration camp and about the same number can’t name a single branch of the US government. Yet many who promote these ideas are highly educated from some of America’s best universities. By many criteria, they are good people. But the author believes they have a character flaw - stubbornness. They fail to tailor what they believe to evidence. They hold false beliefs and doing so has consequences/

What can be done about it? If they think badly, the solution is to learn to think well. There are in fact standards of how to think that have come down to us through - no surprise here - philosophy! It relates to knowing how to know. That comes from knowing one’s self - and knowing what one knows and doesn’t know - evaluating the truth of one’s beliefs.

Bad thinking involves refusal to change one’s beliefs in the face of evidence and instead relying on prejudice, hearsay and emotions like hope and fear. Many are averse to science and its methodologies. Some wrong beliefs - like a flat earth - might seem logical when you look at the horizon and holding such a belief is unlikely to cause harm to others. Other wrong beliefs - like thinking the election was stolen - lead to insurrection.

The lecture took me back to first year philosophy and a reminder that logic patterns have rules. It contended that more often than not, the faults in wrong thinking relate to illogical premises and these need to be questioned. The other common one in bad thinking is paying attention to small samples of evidence. Unfortunately even the best media often publish reports of studies with small samples, which bring on hope and fear rather than reasoned response. Retraction of bad studies don’t get the same press. In our own time press coverage of conspiracies enhance their reach.

We may not have time to go back to philosophy class - but the book does present some ways to counter bad thinking. Some beliefs may give us comfort whether we have any proof of them or not and this doesn’t present a danger to others. It’s when beliefs lead to behaviour that harms others where we have to pay attention. And there are plenty of those beliefs currently around us.

Sometimes studies help

How often do we read of reports and studies and know that all the time put in is probably wasted. They sit on a shelf for a while and then are forgotten as personnel change or recommendations seem impossible because of the cost. I was involved with one such study some years ago in which the cost estimate was $40,000. Ouch, we said - and asked how long could we delay implementing the study recommendation. The answer came back as two to three years. We did nothing. I later left the volunteer post. Recently I hears there was water damage for an estimated starting cost of $13,000 with another $30,000 or $40,000 to follow. Some years ago we had the money in the bank to proceed. Now after shutdown and other events, we no longer have it.

I was glad, therefore, to read about a study that seems to have some practical implications for something I know nothing about - except for eating salmon. I am joined by the people of the Wiulinkinuxv First Nation on Rivers Inlet BC and some grizzly bears who depend upon it for survival. The latter animals are magnificent and I saw some at close range when travelling in the Yukon fourteen years ago. One actually stood up suddenly on hind legs, but we missed the photo op.

In this case, the study looks at how a resource under pressure can be managed to benefit an entire system. Both the community and the bears depend on salmon for food. Over- fishing can deplete the stocks. Twenty five years ago commercial fishing did just that.

What was used was a new approach called ecosystem-based management. It quantifies the relationship of how much use can be made of a food resource for humans and bears without jeopardizing the salmon population in the future. At one point the location had plenteous resources of fish, but overdoing commercial fishing depleted the stock and put the people who lived there in danger from starving bears coming too close. Commercial fishing was halted.

The researcher started working with the community to gather hairs from barbed wire fences that the bears left behind. Isotopes from those hairs allowed the researcher to determine what percentage of salmon was part of the bears’ diet. Over time that percentage created a formula published this week in the Journal, Marine and Coastal Fisheries - (not my normal weekend reading, of course. I learned about it from The Globe and Mail). The researcher, Dr. Megan Adams, spent seven years to see if the bears were gradually able to consume more fish. What it showed was that if the local population reduced fishing by 10% the bears could gain the same amount and be healthy. Since commercial fishing stopped, the stocks have returned - but not at a level to resume commercial fishing.

There are lots of studies that probably please other academics, but have little functional application to make life better for both humans and grizzly bears. Bravo for this one.

What Freedom Means

We don’t have a line in our national anthem such as “the land of the free and the home of the brave” as our neighbors to the south have. But it is certainly causing more problems in America than in Canada over the right to be free from vaccinations. After a slow start, Canadians are now ahead with nearly 60% fully vaccinated and 71% with one dose according to Covid-19 Tracker Canada. 26,601 have died since the beginning of the pandemic as opposed to 613,000 in the US. Ours is roughly a tenth of the US population.

Yes, we have unvaccinated people - some who oppose for supposedly religious reasons, some with difficulty of access. But generally people have been supportive and appreciative of the opportunity to contribute to their own health and that of others. When restrictions are lifted quickly, some are quick to object to the speed of it.

Contrast that with Florida where 10,000 are currently in the hospital. Its governor insists that “the left are coming for your freedom” if anyone thinks that regulations should be tighter. Freedom is about personal choice.

Sometimes of course we are highly selective about personal choice. The Canadian government more than a hundred years ago thought that it could convert its first nations population to its own cultural values and exerted its privilege. It’s taken us a long time to realize that was wrong. We can argue about the size of government, but in some circumstances we recognize a responsibility to introduce policies that protect the majority of people. As Paul Krugman observes in a column in the New York Times this morning:

“Well, driving drunk is also a personal choice. But almost everyone understands that it’s a personal choice that endangers others; 97 percent of the public considers driving while impaired by alcohol a serious problem. Why don’t we have the same kind of unanimity on refusing to get vaccinated, a choice that helps perpetuate the pandemic and puts others at risk?”

It appears that carrots - like $100 for laggards - are not working - and the previous compliant ones don’t see why their tax dollars should support such practice. What does seem to have an effect are sticks like consequences. You can be as unvaccinated as you want, but expect that to affect your ability to come to work, to enter a theatre, bar or arena, or avoid being tested a couple of times a week with an unpleasant procedure. It’s not only freedom lovers who get to make the rules.

Krugman goes on to say that “freedom” often just means “privilege” for people who are also white, male and sometimes Christian. Freedom can never be divorced from responsibility or consequence.