Saturday, December 12, 2009

Undead Socialism & The Precautionary Principal

I read two very interesting posts today which seem directly related when you think about it. The first comes from a post by Steven Den Beste, memorialized at No Oil For Pacifists:

. . . Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.

So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.

To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, "They didn’t do it right." But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.) . . .

I wonder how we get so many "teleologists" in America? Is it a defective gene, or are they made that way by nurture, by a "social justice" education system, and disneyfication. That is a question for psychologists. Regardless, it does explain why socialism has repeatedly risen from its grave. It also may have some bearing on a principal now being bandied about by climate scientists and used as one of the bases for the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide is a dangerous polutant. That would be the precautionary principal. Essentially, it means, in regards to climate science, that no scientific certainty is necessary. If a possible conclusion of a scientific theory is sufficiently catastrophic, then one must act to prevent it irregardless of the lack of settled science. But the precautionary principal is a double edged sword. This from The Volokh Conspiracy:

. . . If we have to take seriously the dangers of a global warming catastrophe, we should give equally serious consideration to the risks on the other side. For example, it’s possible that cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80%, as some environmentalists advocate, would devastate the global economy, impoverishing millions and causing widespread suffering and death. Moreover, enforcing a worldwide cap and trade regime strong enough to compel obedience by China, India, Russia, and other potentially recalcitrant states might require a global authority with massive powers; even if these states formally agree to a cap and trade system, they might not enforce it aggressively against their own industries, unless compelled. The vast powers necessary to impose compliance could easily be abused in a variety of ways. In the most extreme scenario, the enforcement authority could eventually become an oppressive or even totalitarian world government from which there is no hope of escape. These two scenarios are admittedly unlikely (though the first is improbable largely because an 80% emissions cut is likely to be politically infeasible for the foreseeable future), but they can’t be completely ruled out. If, as Thomas Friedman says, the precautionary principle requires us to “buy insurance” against “a[ny] problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is ‘irreversible’ and potentially ‘catastrophic,’” these extreme scenarios have to be considered and strong precautions taken to forestall them before any large-scale anti-global warming initiative can be adopted.

Less extreme, but still major catastrophes, are also possible — and far more likely than the worst-case scenarios noted above. For example, as co-blogger Jonathan Adler explains, a cap and trade program could create a bonanaza for interest group rent-seekers who will use it to exploit the general public, while simultaneously falling far short of achieving the level of emission reductions that would be necessary to have a serious impact on global warming. Such large-scale inefficiency might well reduce economic growth. And even small (but persistent) reductions in annual world economic growth would consign millions of people to poverty or an early death, because of the enormous impact of compound growth over time. For example, if India had abandoned its flawed economic policies just a few years earlier than it did in the 1980s and 90s, millions of children who died young might have survived to adulthood. Similar devastating cumulative results could occur if anti-global warming measures slow down Indian or other Third World growth rates today. . . .

It is, I think, a measure of the accuracy of Mr. Beste's analysis that so many people - the majority of whom do not have a pecuniary interest in AGW regulation but nonetheless seek its implementation - do so without any regard for the downside of their plans. One wonders also how the EPA can possibly make a finding on CO2 of this consequence relying upon a one sided analysis of the precautionary principal. My only possible conclusion is that a substantial portion of our fellow Americans and those occupying most positions in our federal government today are insane.


6 comments:

Ex-Dissident said...

GW, I attended a meeting recently where directors and other administrators came together from various branches of a very large government enterprise. Many were illiterate; when they spoke they used corrupted English grammar and mispronounced words. Some debated how to properly phrase a document because they were confused over how to interpret its meaning: it seemed strange to me as the document was perfectly clear. There were several who spoke simply for the purpose of hearing themselves speak. Some of the women administrators came in wearing flamboyant fur hats and kept wearing them in the conference room; they seemed very pleased with themselves. The men displayed equally poor manners by opening up their coats and sitting in them.

When I first came to this country, I did not speak English. During the initial several years, I was in a very ordinary class in a public school. The other students there were ignorant and full of themselves. When I learned the language I was transferred to an advanced studies class where the students seemed interested in learning and could communicate clearly. At this meeting, I felt that I was surrounded once again by pompous morons. Then I thought to myself: Are there any large corporations which are not headed by idiots? The people who rise to the top are often those who play dirty office politics, but otherwise have little talent.

The administration seems insane, but most of them are not psychotic - they just dumb. They are like a group of rats blindly following some insane pied piper.

Ex-Dissident said...

There should be a feature that allows the author to correct the comment. Now I look silly because of a typo.

Dinah Lord said...

Ex-dissident. Typo - what typo?

I was so enthralled reading your account of the meeting that I didn't even notice! ;^D

And to your point, GW - I have long believed that liberalism is a mental illness.

But that's just me...

suek said...

"...enforcing a worldwide cap and trade regime strong enough to compel obedience by China, India, Russia, and other potentially recalcitrant states might require a global authority with massive powers;"

Think about that for a minute. Who has forces with enough force to compel such obedience? Would all people be willing to knuckle under to such foreign forces? Sounds like WWIII to me...

"...even if these states formally agree to a cap and trade system, they might not enforce it aggressively against their own industries, unless compelled."

But if they are the enforcers, who will compell them?

"The vast powers necessary to impose compliance could easily be abused in a variety of ways. "

And here we come to the last and most insidious problem - corruption. One of America's greatest strengths has been that no one was immune to prosecution under the law for doing that which was illegal. In most countries, the way "things are done" is through bribery and influence. That means that unless you are one of the powerful, you are in a position of losing it all to someone who simply wants what you have, and is more powerful than you. The powerful are not answerable to the law. I think we're approaching that in this country. Corruption is the ruin of any country.

OBloodyHell said...

> If a possible conclusion of a scientific theory is sufficiently catastrophic.

Hmmm. An significant asteroid or comet strike would be a catastrophe the likes of which this planet has not all that often seen.

Does this mean we need a vigorous space program to defend against such things?

Because that's a much greater risk than the things that AGW can bring -- and it's at least as likely to bring them.


There's a lot of rocks out there with an intersecting pathway, and enough kinetic energy, to knock the earth into another full-on ice age, even IF it didn't knock off civilization directly.

OBloodyHell said...

SueK:


Hockey moms and capital markets

It's a year old, but still relevant.