This I Believe

by Richard Crews

I don't exactly believe in God; I think I "believe" more in human dumbness.

I should hasten to add that I don't exactly disbelieve in God either. For two reasons. One is that in philosophy as in financial investing it seems like a good idea to hedge your bets. As a childhood friend used to say when he went to the trouble of going to mass every Sunday, "Sure, I might be wrong; but then I might be right."

The second reason is that I find a belief in God very comforting. Inhabiting a world where there is a Big Guy looking after me feels a lot safer than any alternative I can think of.

Perhaps I should explain more what I mean by believing in "human dumbness." For one thing, we know we're not aware of one-one-millionth of what goes on around us. Consider not only all the tiny sounds and vibrations that little creatures like cockroaches count on every minute of every day. And the bird songs and other natural noises that are too high-pitched or change too quickly for us to hear. And that doesn't begin to cover the infinitude of vibrations and variations in the electromagnetic spectrum that are all around us and course through us all the time--not just things like ultra-violet light and cosmic rays, but the precise electromagnetic waves that convey a thousand-thousand radio and TV stations, gps data, and cell telephone calls, not to mention a million garage-door openers, traffic light signals, and credit card readers.

So start with the realization that you are sort of going through life with your eyes tight shut and your hands holding hard over your ears plus your nose stuffed up with a cold and your entire skin-suit numbed from, say, freezing cold weather. In other words, at the very best you are aware of only the tiniest fraction of what is going on around you. Then add to that how clear it is when we bring old memories to mind or suddenly think of new ideas or combinations, that we really aren't thinking about most of what we could be thinking about at any given moment.

The idea that I am pretty much aware of the world around me and keeping an eye on it--that I am thinking about it--is totally an ego-maniacal delusion. A better analogy of my waking, alert mental state is that I am pretty much asleep in a warm, very dark cave all the time.

In other words, if there is any evidence or information for or against the existence of a God, I am surely not capable of becoming aware of it or understanding it. Put another way--almost all the evidence (and thinking) that bears on this question is beyond me. What little I can come up with must be, at best, the tiny layer of frost on the visible part of the ice berg. And what I surely am missing out on might easily counteract my thinking and reverse my opinion seventeen times over.

One more thing--the last straw, as it were. Sometimes I notice that even when I have looked into something carefully and thought about it intensely, I get it wrong. Later on, I find I have to change my mind.

It seems clear that the only thing that keeps me believing (if I do) one way or another about the existence of a God is that "ego-maniacal delusion" I mentioned. That delusion is very dear to me, it is true; but unfortunately it is not worth the few neurons it is written on.

Mining Garbage

by Richard Crews

There are thousands of cubic miles of garbage in the world, much of it piled into unsightly and unhealthy mountains near urban centers. Some of the best of these are land fills, bulldozed over and buried under a layer of dirt, perhaps overgrown with wild places or parks, built over with parking lots and malls, even supporting the foundations of buildings and urban or suburban sprawl.

These mountains of mixed, unattractive and toxic scats of civilization accumulate and grow year by year. They are always a municipal problem, often a blight on the landscape, sometimes a political catastrophe. A few years ago, for example, a series of huge barges piled high with garbage were stranded in the harbor outside New York City. They were not permitted to dump their loads out at sea any more, but also were not allowed to return to land. One charming headline reporting the dilemma read, "Waste Is a Terrible Thing to Mind."

These mountains of garbage contain a lot of foodstuffs, volatile chemicals, wood and paper products, etc. that decay and decompose in a matter of days to weeks. They also contain hardier metal and composite materials, plastics and manufactured substances that endure for months, even years, before gradually returning to smaller chemical components that can recycle to and through nature's processes. Some, however, are even more durable--aluminum cans, radioactive hospital wastes, heavy metals, and exotic components of electronic discards--that truly "laugh at the centuries."

But these mountains of garbage can be curiously valuable, too--under the right circumstances. They represent, for example, a far more concentrated and refined repository of copper, iron, and some rare metals such as gold, silver, and platinum, than the best ores found in nature. Some municipalities and private enterprises have undertaken to mine garbage dumps--to extract the valuable resources they may yield. But this can be a difficult matter, presenting both political and technological problems, hounded by both ecological and economic concerns.

We the public, both as civilized political animals and as hopeful custodians of wild places, need to take on--carefully, thoughtfully, and fully--the complex considerations attendant on mining garbage . Otherwise we, the civilized species that has gradually taken over the planet, will ultimately shit ourselves to death.

Afghanistan--Three Solutions

by Richard Crews

Much of Iraq (were it not for the language barrier) could be seamlessly transplanted into the U.S.--the urban centers and suburban sprawl, the paved highways and byways, the malls, the cell phones, the filling stations, the power lines, etc. would fit right in. By contrast, much of Afghanistan would only blend into a Stone Age setting: there are thousands of square miles of rugged mountains with isolated villages that do not have much in the way of sanitation, community water supplies, paved roads, etc.

In Iraq, overrunning a sophisticated, modern civilization (albeit run by a bloody dictator) did not pose much of a problem even for the Bush team (although controlling the ensuing the wave of inner-city vandalism and race riots was pretty much beyond them). But the situation in Afghanistan is altogether different; Afghanistan simply does not have the proper infrastructure to be invaded in a civilized way. Gangs of armed toughs run rampant through the countryside--stealing, raping, torturing, burning, reminding us that without adult supervision "boys will be boys"--even having the temerity to shoot at U.S. troops (who are only there to help them)--and then retreating to mountain caves or stashing their weapons and tilling their fields when the "cops" (that is, armed U.S. troops) come to town.

The U.S. would like to go home and leave Afghanistan to their own devices, but we can't. They provide a haven for Taliban jihadists to plan escapades like the 9-11 attacks against the U.S. and to motivate young men to martyr their way into a warped version of heaven with lots of available virgins.

There are three possible solutions to the Afghanistan problem.

First Solution: Allegiance to the Taliban is fragile and fickle; they buy the allegiance of the locals for about $8 a day. For $9 a day they would switch sides. This would cost the U.S. about $300 million a year--about 1/80th what our Afghanistan effort is now costing us. This is analogous to the U.S. program of buying the support of insurgents that turned the tide in Iraq (commonly politically attributed to "the Surge").

Second Solution: the main cash crop in Afghanistan is opium poppies (and the morphine and heroin derived from them). If we took seriously the lessons we could learn from the history of prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. and did away with legal restrictions on opium, that would effectively castrate the entire narco-trafficking system on which rural Afghanistan depends. Granted, opium derivatives are severely addicting--in fact, they are one of the Big Four addicting scourges of Western Civilization (alcohol, nicotine, opium derivatives, and cocaine). However, even though opium derivatives and cocaine do not have the serious health dangers that go along with alcohol and nicotine addiction (like cirrhosis of the liver and lung cancer), there are strong cultural prejudices against legalizing them.

An Alternative Second Solution: If we could come up with a cash crop for rural Afghanistan that would be competitive with opium poppies . . . but there simply isn't one.

Third Solution (and this seems to be the path we are undertaking): A long (decades long), expensive (hundreds of billions of dollars), carefully thought-out (which seems historically un-American) diplomatic and cultural effort to bring Afghanistan, kicking and screaming like a spoiled child, into the 21st century.

My recommendation: a combination of all three of these solutions.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld--War Crimes

by Richard Crews

George Bush was President, Dick Cheney was Vice President, and Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense for several years while the U.S. was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did they condone torture of prisoners? It seems clear from reports of the International Red Cross and sworn testimony of guards at Guantanamo Bay that they did. And they did not just condone it--they did not just set policies and procedures establishing the use of torture; they sent specific, direct orders again and again--hour after hour; day, week, month, and year after year--next use such-and-such technique on such-and-such specific prisoner. The interrogators were unsure of their legal and moral footing; they asked their higher-ups again and again; and they got back specific, direct orders--again and again.

Were the techniques they ordered truly torture? It seems clear that they were. The prisoners were told that their families were dead and their homelands had been destroyed by nuclear bombs; they were kept for months in solitary confinement in tiny cells (sometimes even for days in coffin-like boxes deprived of air and light), naked in freezing temperatures, beaten, dragged around by a rope around the neck, shackled and kept standing for days on end, deprived of sleep and food, subjected to water-boarding, and interrogated for as much as 18 to 20 hours a day. "Torture," according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...."

Were Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes? It seems clear that they were. "War crimes" are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court in The Hague to include "causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health" including "torture or inhumane treatment."

Should they be indicted by that International Criminal Court? Many people believe that they should. Other political leaders of other countries have been.

Will they be indicted by that court? Probably not. That would involve delicate, tangled threads of international diplomacy.

Guantanamo--The Solution

by Richard Crews

Guantanamo presents a problem--a pickle--a quagmire--a can of worms--a dilemma wrapped up in an enigma. But there is a solution.

After 9/11, President Bush declared that we were in a "war" on terrorism. It wasn't a war in any traditional sense--there were no uniformed troops arrayed against us; no battle lines; no national (or even ethnic) confrontations. But calling a severe national problem a "war" had gotten into our blood--there was the "war on drugs" and on AIDS and even on racism, ageism, sexism, etc. Moreover a U.S. president at "war" has special, additional powers; historically during times of war Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR all suspended habeas corpus and other civil rights that are sacrosanct--that are morally utterly inviolate according to our United States founding documents and civilized principles--except in the extreme circumstances of war.

So President Bush declared "war on terrorism." One is tempted to think that this was in order to expand his Draconian powers; at any rate, it contributed to that result.

In Afghanistan (also in Iraq and elsewhere, but mainly in Afghanistan), the military forces took prisoners--as military forces do. But they were not "prisoners of war" protected by the Geneva Conventions--they didn't wear uniforms, carry weapons openly, or swear allegiance to a nation (which are the criteria carefully defined in the Geneva Conventions). They certainly were not (for the most part) U.S. citizens with the civil rights guaranteed with that status. Moreover, they were not on U.S. ground; a special facility was set up at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on ground which was leased by the U.S. government but was definitely (legally) not U.S. soil.

In legal limbo they were--not subject to U.S. civilian or military law, nor international law. And there they could be kept--as far as the president was concerned--without being charged or tried for a crime--indefinitely. So there they stayed--year after year after year.

Moreover, they were thought to have information about the next 9/11 attack being planned on the United States. Information that, if wrung out of them, might save American lives. So they were tortured--they were told that their families were dead and their homelands had been destroyed by atom bombs; they were kept for months in solitary confinement in tiny cells (sometimes even for days in coffin-like boxes deprived of air and light), naked in freezing temperatures, beaten, dragged around by a rope around the neck, shackled and kept standing for days on end, deprived of sleep and food, subjected to water-boarding, and interrogated for as much as 18 and 20 hours a day. This was despite the expert psychological knowledge that useful information cannot be gained from torture (the victim will say anything)--and the legal fact that any confession or evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in court.

And what, ultimately, could be done with them? Their legal limbo became increasingly complex. They couldn't be tried for a crime because in many cases there was no good evidence against them--and what evidence there might be was too secret--too classified--to be revealed, or else it was tainted by torture. And they couldn't be released--if they did not hate the U.S when they arrived at Guantanamo, they surely did after they had been kept there for a while.

I watched several scholarly legal debates on TV about Guantanamo. It came through clearly to me that there is no reasonable resolution--except one. And it is a curious one. Apparently if the death-penalty option is "taken off the table," the legal and hence administrative resolution becomes simple.

I heard clearly that this is so. I do not understand why--I am not enough of a legal scholar. Perhaps you can explain this to me.

Energy Use--Some Specifics

by Richard Crews

The latest data for energy use per person (2005) in kgoe/p/y (kilograms of oil equivalent per person per year):
Worldwide = 1,778
U.S. = 7,886 (about 4.4 times the world average)

There are 9 countries that use more kgoe/p/y than the U.S.: Bahrain, Canada, Iceland, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands Antilles, Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, and United Arab Emirates.

There are 4 countries that are close behind the U.S.: Brunei, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Singapore

The 4 countries that use the lowest kgoe/p/y are Bangladesh (171), Cambodia (354), Congo (including the Democratic Republic) (300), and Eritrea (175).

In addition to these 19, there are 118 other countries listed in this statistical summary.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html


Household Energy Uses

Energy use per household in the U.S. varies widely, depending on the climate, weather, size and insulation of the home (windows, doors, etc.), and the various kinds (and particularly, the efficiency) of appliances in use. That is why some of the following categories have such wide ranges.

10-60% space heating
0-40% space cooling
5-25% cooking (microwave, stove top, oven)
5-10% refrigerator (freezer)
5-10% water heater
0-10% washing, drying (dishes, clothes)
2-5% lights
2-5% TV and other communication/entertainment appliances
0-5% special uses (shop tools, copier, etc.)


Travel Energy Uses

15-50% local/commute
0-10% mass transit
0-40% long distance, air
0-25% long distance, car
0-15% long distance, rail


Characteristics of Ideal "Smart Meters" for Electricity and Gas

(1) they are in-line at the household meters
(2) they read real-time consumptions
(3) then transmit these data to central household, readily available (e.g., kitchen) read outs
(4) the read outs are in dollars per hour ($/h) with conversions to dollars per month ($/mo) for electricity and for gas

Frills*: The following provide useful and interesting additional information for householders:
(5) Instant comparison with monthly average for that time of day and season of the year
(6) Data on specific major uses and appliances for (a) space heating, (b) air conditioning, (c) refrigerator (freezer), (d) washing/drying, (e) water heater, (f) other

* Note that adding these "frills" raises the cost of a "smart meter" from around $35-$100 per household to $1,200-$1,500 per household. The main reason for the increased cost is the purchase and installation of various sensors and transmitters located at the key energy-use appliances; the cost of the additional computing and computer memory is trivial.


Household Electricity Generation

Every house should have an array of solar panels on the roof. The house should have a bi-directional meter that's allows the owner to sell electricity back into the main utility grid when the Sun is shining and the household is not using as much electrical energy as it is harvesting. Although 36 U.S. states have some provision for allowing private individuals to do this, in all cases the excess electricity is purchased by the local utility company at a significantly reduced rate (often half or less of the selling rate). Some households have battery banks for storing the excess electricity they harvest; in some systems the excess is used to charge up a hybrid car's batteries. But a fair in-and-out arrangement with the local electrical utility company could be most efficient and should be legally mandated.

A national "smart" electricity grid should be built to enable wind corridors along the east and west seaboards and in the north-central states, and the solar energy available in the south-west "Sun" states to feed in electricity for use in populous areas. Although the estimated price tag for this nationwide grid is around $135 billion, utility experts emphasize that the utility companies would be willing to foot this infrastructure bill if the U.S. government would assure right-of-way and permitting feasibility.

Pay

by Richard Crews

Nobody needs to make a million dollars a year.

Why do I say this furtively and apologetically? I don't.

In a world where a billion people (most of them children) are starving, where a billion people (most of them children) don't have safe drinking water, where tens of millions (most of them children) die each year of curable diseases, no one--NO ONE--should rake the cream off the top.

This includes professional athletes, Hollywood stars, entrepreneurs, business executives, or anyone else.

The arguments against this--that you won't get top talent ("the best and the brightest"), that you won't motivate financial risk-takers, that freely competitive markets maximize overall growth and wealth, even that you would stifle philanthropy--are spurious.

The arguments that you will drive big business and big investment overseas--that manufacturing will fly off to China and banking to the Cayman Islands--are not spurious. And they cannot be overcome by regulation and protectionism. But perhaps they can be overcome by creating a civilization (a "cultural expectation," if you will) that correctly reflects our mutual interdependence--that we are all humans--one single, fortunate species--embarked on a remarkable journey across time on single, fragile planet hurtling through the wide emptiness of space.

It serves our spiritual growth and emotional health to recognize this. It also happens to be true, and also pragmatically necessary in even the "short" run of a few centuries.

Will Rogers, the down-home, humorist philosopher, was asked once by a reporter during the Second World War what should be done about the German submarines that were savaging Allied ships and coastlines. He replied, "We should boil the oceans--I'll leave the details to you fellows."

And that's where I shall leave my perspectives on pay, along with all my other "good ideas."