Arquivo da tag: Política

O episódio Marco Feliciano, o Congresso e as manifestações populares

Guilherme Karakida, da UFRJ Plural, me entrevistou ontem, poucas horas antes do anúncio, por parte do PSC, de que Marco Feliciano permaneceria na presidência da CDHM. Reproduzo a entrevista abaixo – Renzo Taddei.

Por Guilherme Karakida – 26 de março de 2013

O que significa, do ponto de vista político, a presidência do Marco Feliciano na Comissão dos Direitos Humanos e Minorias(CDHM)?

Essa não é uma questão simples. Há vários fatores distintos que marcam o momento político atual brasileiro, e que se cruzam no caso do Marco Feliciano. Vou mencionar alguns que acho mais importantes, do meu ponto de vista. E o meu ponto de vista é o de alguém mais próximo aos movimentos sociais e não de um especialista no funcionamento do legislativo. É importante deixar claro a partir de onde se está falando. Se o Marco Feliciano tem uma virtude que muitos outros congressistas não têm, é o fato de ele não esconder quem ele é.

Em primeiro lugar, há a estratégia de amplas alianças partidárias como forma de chegar ao poder e se manter nele, usada pelo PT desde meados da década de 1990. Isso não é marca exclusiva do PT: em ciência política, se diz que o Brasil tem como sistema político um presidencialismo de coalizão. Isso significa que os partidos necessitam criar coalisões para ter sucesso eleitoral, e os presidentes da república precisam delas para governar, especialmente no que diz respeito às formas como a presidência se relaciona com o Congresso Nacional. O que ocorre é que, no caso da era PT, há partidos na base aliada que são marcadamente conservadores. Ou seja, aquela ideia antiga que diz que o governo do PT é de esquerda e a oposição é de direita não condiz com a realidade. O PT se relaciona melhor com partidos de centro-direita do que com partidos de esquerda, como o PSTU e o PSOL. É nesse contexto que o PSC passa a fazer parte da ampla coligação de partidos em apoio à candidatura de Dilma Roussef em 2010. Marco Feliciano foi cabo eleitoral importante de Dilma dentro do mundo evangélico. Com o consequente loteamento de cargos dentro das várias instâncias do governo, inclusive no legislativo, era de se esperar que Marco Feliciano assumisse alguma posição de liderança.

Em segundo lugar há o avanço da bancada evangélica no universo da política, de forma crescente, nos últimos anos. Há, entre lideranças políticas evangélicas, a agenda declarada de ocupar todos os cargos possíveis, com o intuito de barrar a aprovação de legislação que vá contra os preceitos morais que defendem. O próprio Marco Feliciano diz abertamente que está lá para barrar a aprovação do PL 122, o projeto de lei que criminaliza a homofobia.

E, finalmente, há o descaso do governo Dilma para com as questões dos direitos humanos e das minorias. Apesar de o governo Dilma ter sinalizado,no início de sua gestão, em direção favorável no que diz respeito a esses temas, com a criação da Comissão da Verdade e com a valorização da questão de gênero na composição do governo, e também com a manutenção do movimento pró-cotas que herdou do governo Lula, o que viria depois iria demonstrar que aquelas eram iniciativas de certa forma pontuais, e que não constituiriam uma linha de ação perene. Em virtude de uma série de conflitos com grande parte dos movimentos sociais, por razões que vão do descaso e desrespeito às populações chamadas tradicionais, como os indígenas, ao retrocesso quanto às políticas culturais da gestão anterior, onde havia a compreensão de que o direito à própria cultura é uma forma de direito humano, o governo Dilma enfrenta a oposição massiva das organizações da sociedade civil – pelo menos daquelas que não foram cooptadas pelo governo e passaram a depender de verba federal para existir. De certa forma, o governo Dilma reduz o tema dos direitos humanos, como todos os demais problemas sociais, à questão da renda, pura e simplesmente. O governo Dilma foi criticado pela Anistia Internacional e pelo HumanRightsWatch, apenas para mencionar duas entidades importantes na área. É esse descaso que fez com que a Comissão dos Direitos Humanos e Minorias não fosse prioridade das lideranças governistas no legislativo, e esta se tornou alvo fácil da bancada evangélica.

Como um parlamentar que deu declarações homofóbicas e racistas pode assumir um órgão que luta justamente pela garantia e manutenção dos direitos humanos desses grupos?

Trata-se de uma estratégia política, fundamentada na agenda específica da bancada evangélica, e não na compreensão que o senso comum tem do que são os direitos humanos e as minorias. Ou seja, é óbvio que Marco Feliciano não está lá para avançar na questão dos direitos humanos e das minorias, da forma como estas pautas se constituem historicamente no Brasil; pelo contrário, ele está lá para evitar que qualquer avanço nessa área se dê de forma conflitante com a agenda moralizante da bancada à qual ele faz parte. No Brasil, os temas dos direitos humanos e das minorias são historicamente parte das agendas políticas da esquerda; a direita sempre defendeu a supressão desses temas dos debates nacionais, como ainda se pode ver dentro dos meios militares, por exemplo. O que ocorre é que é a direita religiosa, e não a direita histórica, formada por militares e ruralistas, por exemplo, e com a qual a esquerda sempre esteve mais acostumada, começou a ocupar cargos importantes. E, o que é mais problemático, o faz de dentro mesmo do governo, como parte da base aliada.

É preciso que se diga, no entanto, que a bancada evangélica é notoriamente fragmentada em questões políticas, convergindo apenas em questões ligadasas decorrência políticas de sua fé, como nos temas do casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e aborto. Nesse contexto, Marco Feliciano é particularmente patético e espalhafatoso, a ponto de uma grande quantidade de pastores evangélicos no país terem aderido à campanha “Marco Feliciano não me representa”. Ou seja, ele se transformou num abacaxi até mesmo para parte importante do universo evangélico.

Um aspecto disso que passa despercebido da maioria dos debates é o fato de que há o risco de que se reforcem os preconceitos de classe associados à população evangélica, tipicamente proveniente de camadas populares. Ou seja, dentro do contexto de ascensão conservadora em lugares como a cidade de São Paulo, tema de debate recente na USP, há o potencial de que o ressentimento da classe média dita “tradicional” para com as populações favorecidas pelos programas sociais das últimas duas décadas se dê na forma de recrudescimento de preconceitos religiosos.

A presidência do CDHM por um sujeito como o parlamentar do PSC reflete o cenário político brasileiro, no qual os absurdos se repetem?

Sem dúvida, e o uso do termo absurdo ilustra outra dimensão do problema: a crise de legitimidade do Estado atinge agora níveis estratosféricos. Particularmente no parlamento, com Renan Calheiros na presidência do Senado, Marco Feliciano na Comissão dos Direitos Humanos e Minorias – e esses são apenas os exemplos do momento -, as duas casas são marcadas porum nível de descrédito talvez inédito. Ou seja, a população vive a velha sensação de desconexão com o parlamento de forma inflacionada, em parte porque tanto Renan Calheiros quanto Marco Feliciano e alguns de seus apoiadores, como o Jair Bolsonaro, dão performances públicas profundamente desrespeitosas à população brasileira.

Por outro lado, há um aspecto positivo nisso tudo: tenho a impressão de que essa controvérsia toda, somada a outros conflitos como o de Belo Monte, o dos Guarani Kaiowá do Mato Grosso do Sul, o da Aldeia Maracanã e demais remoções desumanas ocorridas no Rio de Janeiro em função dos chamados grandes eventos, esta inserindo um bocado de gente jovem no mundo da política, repolitizando gente não tão jovem assim, e quebrando a ideia de que a população só pode se relacionar com a política através de partidos políticos e das eleições. Frequentemente escuto alguém dizer “mas ele foi eleito,e não há nada que se possa fazer a esse respeito”. Isso é discurso de quem não tem interesse na efetiva participação popular na política desse país. A democracia participativa é mais democrática que a representativa; manifestações populares nas ruas e petições públicas são coisas que fortalecem a democracia. E há iniciativas ligadas à democracia participativa ocorrendo em diversas partes do mundo. O sociólogo espanhol Manuel Castells tem escrito sobre a iniciativa chamada Partido do Futuro naquele país; no Brasil, articula-se o #rede. Em ambos os casos, um dos objetivos centrais é a valorização e o fortalecimento de ações políticas existentes fora das instituições tradicionais de poder.

É de se esperar, naturalmente, que aslideranças ligadas ao status quo tendam a ser conservadoras, e se esforcem para diminuir a importância das manifestações populares: em todos os poderes iremos escutar que não se pode administrar um país em função do clamor que vem das ruas, sob o risco de se deixar levar por sentimentalismos de momento e, assim, fragilizar as instituições e o Estado. Não se pode discutir a redução da maioridade penal ou a pena de morte com base no sensacionalismo da mídia; obviamente existe lógica no argumento. O problema é que ele é frequentemente usado para desarticular movimentos políticos legítimos – Renan Calheiros usou esse argumento para justificar a razão pela qual não deixaria a presidência do Senado. O resultado disso tudo é a sensação de que o custo da estabilidade institucional do parlamento é a sua falência moral. O ponto é justamente esse: para grande parte da população brasileira, as instituições de poder estão moralmente falidas, e as ações de membros da base aliada, como Renan Calheiros e Marco Feliciano, sem que as principais lideranças se manifestem a esse respeito, não fazem mais do que evidenciar isso de forma contundente.

O parlamentar já se defendeu publicamente e pediu um “voto de confiança” da população. Nesse caso, e com a repercussão que o assunto alcançou, isso é possível?

Marco Feliciano não vai mudar sua linha de ação. Talvez modere o seu discurso, mas não vai mudar de agenda. Mesmo após o movimento que exige sua renúncia tomar as proporções que tomou, ele afirmou recentemente à revista Veja que a população LGBT não constitui minoria; na tentativa de dizer que os negros não são amaldiçoados, ele simplesmente repetiu o argumento original e, portanto, a calúnia, e pateticamente adicionou “Eu não disse que os africanos são todos amaldiçoados. Até porque o continente africano é grande demais. Não tem só negros. A África do Sul tem brancos”.

Não estou dizendo, com isso, que não há lugar no parlamento para ele. Isso seria profundamente antidemocrático. É natural que exista a bancada evangélica, e ela deve ser respeitada. O que é um contrassenso é ter um líder de comissão cuja agenda é impedir que a comissão funcione, como é claramente o caso de Marco Feliciano.

O que pode vir a ocorrer caso o deputado permaneça no cargo?

Infelizmente nem a Dilma nem o PT, insulados que estão no jogo do poder, tem preocupação com o que pensam a sociedade civil e os movimentos sociais. A cada pesquisa de opinião que mostra os níveis elevados de popularidade da presidenta, menos interesse ela tem em dialogar com os atores ativos da sociedade civil. Daí o mutismo presidencial no que diz respeito a esse imbróglio político. O que ocorre, no entanto, é que nunca no Brasil o movimento LGBT, por exemplo, foi tão organizado e ativo; o mesmo pode se dizer de grupos que atuam em defesa de populações indígenas, muitas das quais veem na atividade missionária evangélica uma ameaça real à sua existência cultural. Não acredito que possa haver qualquer forma de acomodação quanto à presença de Marco Feliciano na presidência da Comissão dos Direitos Humanos e Minorias. Marco Feliciano provavelmente irá bloquear a discussão de pontos importantes da agenda de alguns movimentos, notadamente o LGBT, o que sem dúvida irá manter a briga acirrada.

As manifestações tanto nas redes sociais como nas ruas podem contribuir de que maneira para sua saída?

Cabe à sociedade civil transformar essa questão em algo que cause desgaste político a Dilma e ao PSC; ou seja, é hora de fazer barulho.Nesse exato momento, o PSC examina o custo político de deixar as coisas como estão, porque sentiu o efeito da mobilização popular. Não há qualquer dúvida de que foram as redes sociais, nesse caso, como na coleta de mais de um milhão e seiscentas mil assinaturas na petição em favor da renúncia de Renan Calheiros, ou no apoio aos Guarani Kaiowá ou à Aldeia Maracanã, que fizeram toda a diferença.

As redes sociais tem papel fundamental na circulação de informações que não figuram na mídia tradicional, ou pela possibilidade de enquadramentos diversos àqueles que caracterizam as grandes corporações de imprensa desse país. Além disso, a própria forma como as informações existem nas redes sociais são um diferencial enorme: boa parte delas circula como dado, como declaração de apoio à causa e como convocação à ação, tudo isso ao mesmo tempo. Quebra-se assim a falsidade ideológica característica do discurso supostamente neutro da imprensa corporativa. Há também o risco de que a mobilização política nas redes ganhe um caráter de linchamento cibernético, como tem reclamado o próprio Marco Feliciano; infelizmente os movimentos sociais não sabem como lidar com esse problema, que é real.

O fato é que vivemos um momento de transformação dos processos políticos, em especial no que diz respeito à relação destes com as tecnologias digitais. Ninguém sabe exatamente como se dá a relação entre redes sociais e a política, porque não temos muita experiência a esse respeito, tudo é muito novo, ainda estamos engatinhando nesse sentido. Mas já pudemos ver o potencial existente nessa articulação. E é exatamente por isso que vivemos um momento excepcional: estou certo de que 2014 será um ano de enormes surpresas. Espero que aí se inicie um processo através do qual muitos dos paleopolíticos que infestam Brasília sejam extintos; mas só esperando pra ver. Só não podemos esperar sentados: para que isso efetivamente ocorra, é preciso acreditar que a política das ruas e dos teclados é tão, senão mais, importante que a das instituições centrais do poder.

A política do futuro já chegou (Revista Fórum)

25/03/2013 9:12 pm

Uma iniciativa popular na Espanha propõe exercer a democracia direta. A ideia se disseminou na internet e evidenciou a crise institucional do país, e também, a necessidade de outro sistema de representação.

Por Manuel Castells*

No dia 8 de janeiro foi anunciada, na internet, a criação do “partido do futuro”, um método experimental para construir uma democracia sem intermediários, que substituiria as atuais instituições deslegitimadas na mente dos cidadãos. A repercussão social e midiática tem sido considerável. Apenas no primeiro dia de lançamento, apesar do colapso do servidor ao receber 600 petições por segundo, foram 13 mil seguidores no twitter, 7 mil no Facebook e 100 mil visitas no Youtube. Mídias estrangeiras e espanholas têm repercutido o futuro que anuncia o triunfo eleitoral de seu programa: democracia e ponto. (http://partidodelfuturo.net).

Movimento 15-M em Madri: nova política (Foto: Wikimedia Commons)

Sinal de que já não se pode ignorar o que surge do 15-M (nascimento do movimento dos indignados). Porque este partido emerge do caldo  criado pelo movimento, embora de forma alguma se equipare ao mesmo. Porque não há “o movimento” com estrutura organizada, nem representantes, e sim pessoas em movimento que compartilham de uma denúncia básica das formas de representação política que tem deixado pessoas indefesas diante dos efeitos de uma crise que não foram culpadas, porém sofrem os resultados a cada dia. O 15-M é uma prática coletiva e individual diversificada e de mudanças, que vive na rede e nas ruas, e cujos componentes tomam iniciativas de todo o tipo, desde a defesa contra o escândalo das hipotecas até a proposta de lei eleitoral que democratize a política.

Porém, até agora, muitas destas iniciativas parecem condenadas a um beco sem saída. Por um lado, as pesquisas mostram que uma grande maioria dos cidadãos (cerca de 70%) concorda com a crítica do 15-M e com muitas de suas propostas. Por outro lado, toda esta mobilização não se traduz em medidas concretas que aliviem as pessoas, pois há um bloqueio institucional para a adoção destas propostas. Os dois grandes partidos espanhóis são corresponsáveis pela submissão da política aos poderes financeiros no tratamento da crise, compartilhando, por exemplo, a gestão irresponsável dos diretores do Banco da Espanha, com um governador socialista, no caso de Bankia e do sistema de caixas, que tem conduzido a ruína milhares de famílias. Por isso, o 15-M se expressou no espaço público, em acampamentos, manifestações, assembleias de bairro e em ações pontuais de denúncia. Mas, embora esta intervenção seja essencial para criar consciência, se esgota em si mesma quando se confronta com uma repressão policial cada vez mais violenta.

Felizmente, o 15-M tem freado qualquer impulso de protesto violento, e tem feito um papel de canalizador pacífico da ira popular. O dilema é como superar as barreiras atuais sem deixar de ser um movimento espontâneo, auto-organizado, com múltiplas iniciativas que não são um programa. E por isso, podem unir potencialmente os 99% que sabem o que não querem, e que concordam em buscar um conjunto de novas vias políticas de gestão pela vida.

Para avançar nesse sentido, tem surgido uma iniciativa espontânea de ocupar o único espaço em que o movimento é pouco presente: as instituições. Mas não imediatamente, porque seu projeto não é ser uma minoria parlamentar, e sim de modificar a forma de fazer política, mediante uma democracia direta, instrumentada na internet, propondo referendos sobre temas-chaves, elaborando propostas legislativas mediante consultas e debates no espaço público, urbano e cibernético, implantando medidas concretas de debates entre os cidadãos e utilizando a plataforma com propostas que saiam do povo.

Na realidade, não é um partido, embora esteja inscrito no registro dos partidos, mas sim um experimento político, que vai se reinventando conforme avança. No horizonte vislumbra-se um momento em que o apoio do povo para votar contra todos os políticos de uma vez e em favor de uma plataforma eleitoral que tenha como único ponto no programa, permitir uma ocupação legal do parlamento e o desmantelamento do sistema tradicional de representação por dentro dele mesmo. Não é tão descabido. É muito o que aconteceu na Islândia, referência explicita do partido do futuro.

Mas, como evitar reproduzir o esquema de partido no processo de conquistar a maioria eleitoral? Aqui é onde surge a decisão, criticada pela classe política e alguns meios, das pessoas que têm tomado esta iniciativa de manter-se no anonimato. Porque se não há nomes, não há lideres, nem cargos, nem comitês federais, nem porta-vozes que dizem falar pelos demais, mas que acabam representando a si mesmos. Se não há rostos, o que sobra são ideias, práticas, iniciativas. De fato, é a prática da máscara como forma de criação de um sujeito coletivo composto de milhões de indivíduos mascarados, como fizeram os zapatistas, ou como fazem os Anonymous com a sua famosa máscara reconhecida em todo o mundo, mas com múltiplos portadores. Inclusive o anonimato do protesto se encontra em nossos clássicos: “Fuenteovejuna todos a una”.

Talvez chegue o momento em que as listas eleitorais queiram nomes, mas não necessariamente serão líderes, porque poderão ser sorteados os nomes entre milhares de pessoas que estejam de acordo com uma plataforma de ideias. No fundo se trata de pôr em primeiro plano a política das ideias com a que os políticos enchem a boca, enquanto fazem sua carreira entre cotoveladas. A personalização da política é maior sequela da liderança ao longo da história, baseada na demagogia, na ditadura do chefe e na política do escândalo para destruir pessoas representativas. O X do partido do futuro não é para esconder-se, mas sim para que seu conteúdo preencha as pessoas que projetem neste experimento seus sonhos pessoais em um sonho coletivo: democracia e ponto. A definir.

*Tradução: Carolina Rovai. Artigo publicado originalmente no La Vanguardia

Germany Has Created An Accidental Empire (Social Europe)

25/03/2013 BY ULRICH BECK

ulrich_beckAre we now living in a German Europe? In an interview with EUROPP editors Stuart A Brown and Chris Gilson, Ulrich Beck discusses German dominance of the European Union, the divisive effects of austerity policies, and the relevance of his concept of the ‘risk society’ to the current problems being experienced in the Eurozone.

How has Germany come to dominate the European Union?

Well it happened somehow by accident. Germany has actually created an ‘accidental empire’. There is no master plan; no intention to occupy Europe. It doesn’t have a military basis, so all the talk about a ‘Fourth Reich’ is misplaced. Rather it has an economic basis – it’s about economic power – and it’s interesting to see how in the anticipation of a European catastrophe, with fears that the Eurozone and maybe even the European Union might break down, the landscape of power in Europe has changed fundamentally.

First of all there’s a split between the Eurozone countries and the non-Eurozone countries. Suddenly for example the UK, which is only a member of the EU and not a member of the Eurozone, is losing its veto power. It’s a tragic comedy how the British Prime Minister is trying to tell us that he is still the one who is in charge of changing the European situation. The second split is that among the Eurozone countries there is an important division of power between the lender countries and the debtor countries. As a result Germany, the strongest economic country, has become the most powerful EU state.

Are austerity policies dividing Europe?

Indeed they are, in many ways. First of all we have a new line of division between northern European and southern European countries. Of course this is very evident, but the background from a sociological point of view is that we are experiencing the redistribution of risk from the banks, through the states, to the poor, the unemployed and the elderly. This is an amazing new inequality, but we are still thinking in national terms and trying to locate this redistribution of risk in terms of national categories.

At the same time there are two leading ideologies in relation to austerity policies. The first is pretty much based on what I call the ‘Merkiavelli’ model – by this I mean a combination of Niccolò Machiavelli and Angela Merkel. On a personal level, Merkel takes a long time to make decisions: she’s always waiting until some kind of consensus appears. But this kind of waiting makes the countries depending on Germany’s decision realise that actually Germany holds the power. This deliberate hesitation is quite an interesting strategy in terms of the way that Germany has taken over economically.

The second element is that Germany’s austerity policies are not based simply on pragmatism, but also underlying values. The German objection to countries spending more money than they have is a moral issue which, from a sociological point of view, ties in with the ‘Protestant Ethic’. It’s a perspective which has Martin Luther and Max Weber in the background. But this is not seen as a moral issue in Germany, instead it’s viewed as economic rationality. They don’t see it as a German way of resolving the crisis; they see it as if they are the teachers instructing southern European countries on how to manage their economies.

This creates another ideological split because the strategy doesn’t seem to be working so far and we see many forms of protest, of which Cyprus is the latest example. But on the other hand there is still a very important and powerful neo-liberal faction in Europe which continues to believe that austerity policies are the answer to the crisis.

Is the Eurozone crisis proof that we live in a risk society?

Yes, this is the way I see it. My idea of the risk society could easily be misunderstood because the term ‘risk’ actually signifies that we are in a situation to cope with uncertainty, but to me the risk society is a situation in which we are not able to cope with the uncertainty and consequences that we produce in society.

I make a distinction between ‘first modernity’ and our current situation. First modernity, which lasted from around the 18th century until perhaps the 1960s or 1970s, was a period where there was a great deal of space for experimentation and we had a lot of answers for the uncertainties that we produced: probability models, insurance mechanisms, and so on. But then because of the success of modernity we are now producing consequences for which we don’t have any answers, such as climate change and the financial crisis. The financial crisis is an example of the victory of a specific interpretation of modernity: neo-liberal modernity after the breakdown of the Communist system, which dictates that the market is the solution and that the more we increase the role of the market, the better. But now we see that this model is failing and we don’t have any answers.

We have to make a distinction between a risk society and a catastrophe society. A catastrophe society would be one in which the motto is ‘too late’: where we give in to the panic of desperation. A risk society in contrast is about the anticipation of future catastrophes in order to prevent them from happening. But because these potential catastrophes are not supposed to happen – the financial system could collapse, or nuclear technology could be a threat to the whole world – we don’t have the basis for experimentation. The rationality of calculating risk doesn’t work anymore. We are trying to anticipate something that is not supposed to happen, which is an entirely new situation.

Take Germany as an example. If we look at Angela Merkel, a few years ago she didn’t believe that Greece posed a major problem, or that she needed to engage with it as an issue. Yet now we are in a completely different situation because she has learned that if you look into the eyes of a potential catastrophe, suddenly new things become possible. Suddenly you think about new institutions, or about the fiscal compact, or about a banking union, because you anticipate a catastrophe which is not supposed to happen. This is a huge mobilising force, but it’s highly ambivalent because it can be used in different ways. It could be used to develop a new vision for Europe, or it could be used to justify leaving the European Union.

How should Europe solve its problems?

I would say that the first thing we have to think about is what the purpose of the European Union actually is. Is there any purpose? Why Europe and not the whole world? Why not do it alone in Germany, or the UK, or France?

I think there are four answers in this respect. First, the European Union is about enemies becoming neighbours. In the context of European history this actually constitutes something of a miracle. The second purpose of the European Union is that it can prevent countries from being lost in world politics. A post-European Britain, or a post-European Germany, is a lost Britain, and a lost Germany. Europe is part of what makes these countries important from a global perspective.

The third point is that we should not only think about a new Europe, we also have to think about how the European nations have to change. They are part of the process and I would say that Europe is about redefining the national interest in a European way. Europe is not an obstacle to national sovereignty; it is the necessary means to improve national sovereignty. Nationalism is now the enemy of the nation because only through the European Union can these countries have genuine sovereignty.

The fourth point is that European modernity, which has been distributed all over the world, is a suicidal project. It’s producing all kinds of basic problems, such as climate change and the financial crisis. It’s a bit like if a car company created a car without any brakes and it started to cause accidents: the company would take these cars back to redesign them and that’s exactly what Europe should do with modernity. Reinventing modernity could be a specific purpose for Europe.

Taken together these four points form what you could say is a grand narrative of Europe, but one basic issue is missing in the whole design. So far we’ve thought about things like institutions, law, and economics, but we haven’t asked what the European Union means for individuals. What do individuals gain from the European project? First of all I would say that, particularly in terms of the younger generation, more Europe is producing more freedom. It’s not only about the free movement of people across Europe; it’s also about opening up your own perspective and living in a space which is essentially grounded on law.

Second, European workers, but also students as well, are now confronted with the kind of existential uncertainty which needs an answer. Half of the best educated generation in Spanish and Greek history lack any future prospects. So what we need is a vision for a social Europe in the sense that the individual can see that there is not necessarily social security, but that there is less uncertainty. Finally we need to redefine democracy from the bottom up. We need to ask how an individual can become engaged with the European project. In that respect I have made a manifesto, along with Daniel Cohn-Bendit, called “We Are Europe”, arguing that we need a free year for everyone to do a project in another country with other Europeans in order to start a European civil society.

A more detailed discussion of the topics covered in this article is available in Ulrich Beck’s latest book, German Europe (Polity 2013). This interview was first published on EUROPP@LSE

Security Risks of Extreme Weather and Climate Change (Science Daily)

Feb. 11, 2013 — A Harvard researcher is pointing toward a new reason to worry about the effects of climate change — national security.

Hurricane Katrina. Predicted changes in extremes include more record high temperatures; fewer but stronger tropical cyclones; wider areas of drought and increases in precipitation; increased climate variability; Arctic warming and attendant impacts; and continued sea level rise as greenhouse warming continues and even accelerates. (Credit: NOAA)

A new report co-authored by Michael McElroy, the Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies, and D. James Baker, a former administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, connects global climate change, extreme weather, and national security. During the next decade, the report concludes, climate change could have wide-reaching effects on everything from food, water, and energy supplies to critical infrastructure and economic security.

“Over the last century, the trend has been toward urbanization — to concentrate people in smaller areas,” McElroy said. “We’ve built an infrastructure — whether it’s where we build our homes or where we put our roads and bridges — that fits with that trend. If the weather pattern suddenly changes in a serious way, it could create very large problems. Bridges may be in the wrong place, or sea walls may not be high enough.”

Possible effects on critical infrastructure, however, only scratch the surface of the security concerns.

On an international scale, the report points to recent events, such as flooding in Pakistan and sustained drought in eastern Africa, that may be tied to changing weather patterns. How the United States responds to such disasters — whether by delivering humanitarian aid or through technical support — could affect security.

“By recognizing the immediacy of these risks, the U.S. can enhance its own security and help other countries do a better job of preparing for and coping with near-term climate extremes,” Baker said.

The report suggests that climate changes could even have long-reaching political effects.

It’s possible, McElroy said, that climate changes may have contributed to the uprisings of the Arab Spring by causing a rise in food prices, or that the extended drought in northern Mexico has contributed to political instability and a rise in drug trafficking in the region.

“We don’t have definitive answers, but our report raises these questions, because what we are saying is that these conditions are likely to be more normal than they were in the past,” McElroy said. “There are also questions related to sea-level rise. The conventional wisdom is that sea level is rising by a small amount, but observations show it’s rising about twice as fast as the models suggested. Could it actually go up by a large amount in a short period? I don’t think you can rule that out.”

Other potential effects, McElroy said, are tied to changes in an atmospheric circulation pattern called the Hadley circulation, in which warm tropical air rises, resulting in tropical rains. As the air moves to higher latitudes, it descends, causing the now-dry air to heat up. Regions where the hot, dry air returns to the surface are typically dominated by desert.

The problem, he said, is that evidence shows those arid regions are expanding.

“The observational data suggest that the Hadley circulation has expanded by several degrees in latitude,” McElroy said. “That’s a big deal, because if you shift where deserts are by just a few degrees, you’re talking about moving the southwestern desert into the grain-producing region of the country, or moving the Sahara into southern Europe.”

The report is the result of the authors’ involvement with Medea, a group of scientists who support the U.S. government by examining declassified national security data useful for scientific inquiry. In recent decades, the group has worked with officials in the United States and Russia to declassify data on climatic conditions in the Arctic and thousands of spy satellite images. Those images have been used to study ancient settlement patterns in the Middle East and changes in Arctic ice.

“I would be reluctant to say that our report is the last word on short-term climate change,” McElroy said. “Climate change is a moving target. We’ve done an honest, useful assessment of the state of play today, but we will need more information and more hard work to get it right. One of the recommendations in our report is the need for a serious investment in measurement and observation. It’s really important to keep doing that, otherwise we’re going to be flying blind.”

The study was conducted with funds provided by the Central Intelligence Agency. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the CIA or the U.S. government.

Report: Climate Extremes: Recent Trends with Implications for National Security at www.environment.harvard.edu/climate-extremes

Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risk Differently, Research Finds (Science Daily)

Feb. 13, 2013 — A team of political scientists and neuroscientists has shown that liberals and conservatives use different parts of the brain when they make risky decisions, and these regions can be used to predict which political party a person prefers. The new study suggests that while genetics or parental influence may play a significant role, being a Republican or Democrat changes how the brain functions.

Republicans and Democrats differ in the neural mechanisms activated while performing a risk-taking task. Republicans more strongly activate their right amygdala, associated with orienting attention to external cues. Democrats have higher activity in their left posterior insula, associated with perceptions of internal physiological states. This activation also borders the temporal-parietal junction, and therefore may reflect a difference in internal physiological drive as well as the perception of the internal state and drive of others. (Credit: From: Darren Schreiber, Greg Fonzo, Alan N. Simmons, Christopher T. Dawes, Taru Flagan, James H. Fowler, Martin P. Paulus. Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (2): e52970 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052970)

Dr. Darren Schreiber, a researcher in neuropolitics at the University of Exeter, has been working in collaboration with colleagues at the University of California, San Diego on research that explores the differences in the way the brain functions in American liberals and conservatives. The findings are published Feb. 13 in the journalPLOS ONE.

In a prior experiment, participants had their brain activity measured as they played a simple gambling game. Dr. Schreiber and his UC San Diego collaborators were able to look up the political party registration of the participants in public records. Using this new analysis of 82 people who performed the gambling task, the academics showed that Republicans and Democrats do not differ in the risks they take. However, there were striking differences in the participants’ brain activity during the risk-taking task.

Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in the body’s fight-or-flight system. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk.

In fact, brain activity in these two regions alone can be used to predict whether a person is a Democrat or Republican with 82.9% accuracy. By comparison, the longstanding traditional model in political science, which uses the party affiliation of a person’s mother and father to predict the child’s affiliation, is only accurate about 69.5% of the time. And another model based on the differences in brain structure distinguishes liberals from conservatives with only 71.6% accuracy.

The model also outperforms models based on differences in genes. Dr. Schreiber said: “Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity.”

These results may pave the way for new research on voter behaviour, yielding better understanding of the differences in how liberals and conservatives think. According to Dr. Schreiber: “The ability to accurately predict party politics using only brain activity while gambling suggests that investigating basic neural differences between voters may provide us with more powerful insights than the traditional tools of political science.”

Journal Reference:

  1. Darren Schreiber, Greg Fonzo, Alan N. Simmons, Christopher T. Dawes, Taru Flagan, James H. Fowler, Martin P. Paulus. Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and RepublicansPLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (2): e52970 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0052970

Na avaliação de especialistas, pré-sal deve trazer benefícios econômicos e científicos para o Brasil (Jornal da Ciência)

JC e-mail 4665, de 15 de Fevereiro de 2013.

Viviane Monteiro

O país não pode perder a oportunidade de utilizar os royalties do petróleo para investir em educação e em pesquisas científicas

Apesar dos riscos ambientais, a exploração do petróleo da camada pré-sal deve assegurar ao país, em longo prazo, novos patamares de desenvolvimento, tanto econômico quanto cientifico e tecnológico. Essa é a opinião que prevalece entre especialistas e pesquisadores da área de petróleo do Instituto Alberto Luiz Coimbra de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa de Engenharia da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Coppe-UFRJ), da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES) e da Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo (Poli-USP).

Para eles, o Brasil não pode perder a oportunidade de explorar o pré-sal e nem de utilizar os royalties do petróleo extraído dessa camada profunda para investir em educação e em pesquisas científicas e tecnológicas. Um dos objetivos desses investimentos deve ser produzir energias limpas e renováveis, que devem substituir o combustível fóssil no período “pós-petróleo”, o que deve ocorrer nas próximas cinco décadas, aproximadamente.

Diante da exploração do pré-sal, o diretor de tecnologia e inovação da Coppe/UFRJ, Segen Estefen, diz que o Brasil deve se tornar um dos líderes mundiais na produção de tecnologias de ponta tanto para a exploração de petróleo quanto para o desenvolvimento de energias limpas e renováveis. A exploração do pré-sal, segundo ele acredita, representa uma janela de oportunidades para o Brasil figurar entre os maiores produtores de petróleo do mundo, tornando-se um dos “pelotões” de frente da Organização dos Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP).

Nos últimos dois anos, o país passou da 18ª para a 13ª posição no ranking dos produtores de petróleo, conforme o relatório “Statistical Review of World Energy 2011”, da empresa britânica British Petroleum (BP). Com as descobertas das jazidas do pré-sal, as estimativas para as reservas nacionais de petróleo cresceram de 8 bilhões de barris, por volta de 2006, para algo entre 60 bilhões e 70 bilhões, atualmente. Ao colocar esses números na ponta do lápis, Segen calcula que tais cifras representariam uma receita de US$ 4 trilhões para o país, levando-se em conta o preço atual (US$ 100) do barril de petróleo. Ou seja, é um montante similar ao valor corrente do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) nacional de R$ 4,143 trilhões, em 2011.

Em termos de reservas de petróleo, o pesquisador e professor Eustáquio Vinícius de Castro, do Laboratório de Petróleo da UFES, concorda que o pré-sal colocará o Brasil entre os cinco maiores produtores do petróleo do mundo, como Arábia Saudita, Estados Unidos e Venezuela. “A tecnologia a ser desenvolvida para atender à exploração do pré-sal deve ser estendida, também, para outras áreas, sobretudo as indústrias metal-mecânica e a de química ambiental”, diz.

Como exemplo, Castro cita equipamentos de perfuração de áreas ultraprofundas capazes de suportar fortes pressões, que podem ser utilizados pela construção civil; e agentes químicos (aditivos) que devem estar presente nos aparelhos para remoção de impurezas e purificação do óleo do pré-sal. “Esses aditivos, inclusive, podem ser utilizados na purificação de água residual, gerada por empresas fabricantes de tinta, na despoluição de rios ou de esgotos urbanos”, acrescenta.

Modelo norueguês – Também defensor da exploração do pré-sal, o professor Ricardo Cabral de Azevedo, do Departamento de Engenharia de Minas e de Petróleo da Poli/USP, aconselha o Brasil a adotar o modelo da Noruega na extração do petróleo da camada pré-sal e evitar a chamada “doença holandesa”. “Outros países que tiveram grandes reservas a explorar e produzir são exemplos do que devemos ou não fazer no Brasil”, explica. “A Holanda, por exemplo, sofreu o que ficou sendo conhecido como ‘doença holandesa’, porque sua economia se tornou excessivamente dependente do petróleo. Já a Noruega se transformou radicalmente e hoje é um dos países com maior IDH [Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano] do mundo”, lembra.

Até então, a Noruega era um dos países mais pobres da Europa, cujas finanças dependiam principalmente de exportações de commodities, como minérios e peixes enlatados. A virada da economia norueguesa ocorreu a partir de 1969, quando foram descobertas grandes reservas de petróleo no Mar do Norte e a receita foi dirigida principalmente para saúde e educação. Hoje, esse país europeu detém a terceira maior renda per capita do mundo (US$ 59,3 mil) e o IDH mais alto do planeta.

Royalties para educação e CT&I – Assim, para fazer frente aos desafios que se apresentam na extração do petróleo na camada pré-sal no Brasil, os especialistas reforçam a necessidade de destinar parte significativa da receita dessa atividade para educação, ciência, tecnologia e inovação, seguindo o modelo norueguês. Aliás, essa é uma bandeira levantada pela comunidade científica, representada pela Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SBPC).

Os especialistas são unânimes em afirmar que o país precisa aproveitar as riquezas do pré-sal a fim de conquistar novos patamares de desenvolvimento, dar um salto na qualidade na educação e melhorar o capital humano – lembrando que um dia as reservas do petróleo acabarão. “Lembramos que são reservas muito grandes, mas finitas”, alerta Azevedo. “Cabe a nós transformá-las em um legado permanente, investindo na educação e no desenvolvimento do nosso país”, defende.

Já o diretor de tecnologia e inovação da Coppe/UFRJ, Estefen, acrescenta que o país precisa preparar o terreno, na área de pesquisas científicas e tecnológicas, para o período pós-petróleo. Nesse caso, ele considera fundamental assegurar investimentos para ampliar consideravelmente as pesquisas e estudos científicos para o desenvolvimento de tecnologias para produção de energias limpas e renováveis, lembrando que há um esforço de vários países em prol da redução de emissões em médio prazo. Vale destacar que o petróleo é um combustível fóssil que contribui significativamente para o aumento do efeito estufa.

Para o pesquisador da UFES, Castro, que considera positiva a proposta de criação do fundo do pré-sal (fundo soberano) – para o qual deve ser destinada metade da receita do óleo a ser extraído de águas ultraprofundas para educação – a exploração do pré-sal precisa ser inteligente, com responsabilidade ambiental e investimento em educação. “O petróleo traz muita riqueza, mas pode trazer, também, muita pobreza e muito dano ambiental”, lembra. “Por isso, a exploração tem de ser de forma inteligente, com responsabilidade ambiental e investimento em educação.” Hoje as riquezas do petróleo são distribuídas a estados, municípios e União por intermédio de royalties. Pela lei em vigor, os recursos devem ser investidos na parte social do país, “mas as prefeituras fazem mau uso dos recursos”, avalia.

Explorar o pré-sal requer esforços científicos e tecnológicos, considerando que os reservatórios estão a quase sete mil metros de profundidade a partir do nível do mar, com destaque para as Bacias de Santos (SP) e de Campos (RJ). Para fazer frente a esses desafios, Estefen diz que o país precisa mobilizar a comunidade científica nacional, seu conhecimento disponível, criar novos laboratórios, formar capital humano e gerar empregos de qualidade. “Extrair o petróleo do pré-sal vai demandar grande esforço tecnológico, esforços que vão ajudar o Brasil a conquistar novos patamares de desenvolvimento, futuramente”, diz. “Isto é, se usarmos bem os recursos do pré-sal, vamos educar as crianças, desenvolver a indústria, a ciência e a tecnologia. Se seguir tal receituário, o Brasil deverá se destacar no cenário internacional como um dos líderes tecnológicos, dentre os quais figuram Estados Unidos, Japão e países europeus”, conclui.

Pesquisadores analisam os custos ambientais da exploração profunda
Ao colocar na balança os benefícios que as riquezas do pré-sal podem proporcionar ao país e os eventuais custos ambientais, pesquisadores avaliam que o Brasil não pode renunciar à exploração do petróleo em águas profundas, unilateralmente, mesmo reconhecendo que a queima do petróleo contribui para o aquecimento global. Isso não significa que o processo de exploração do pré-sal desconsidere os danos ambientais.

O diretor de tecnologia e inovação da Coppe/UFRJ, Segen Estefen, insiste em dizer que todas as pesquisas em andamento vislumbram a proteção do meio ambiente, em uma tentativa de dar mais segurança às operações. “Não faz sentido o Brasil se beneficiar do petróleo por três ou quatro décadas, mas deixar o país em uma situação ruim para o meio ambiente”, explica.

Hoje os pesquisadores da Coppe, por exemplo, trabalham, simultaneamente, com assuntos ligados tanto à produção de petróleo, nos dias atuais, quanto a outras tecnologias que podem ser usadas na era “pós-petróleo”. Estudam, entre outros aspectos, a produção de eletricidade pelas ondas do mar – uma energia limpa e renovável – aproveitando a mesma estrutura montada e financiada pela indústria do petróleo para desenvolver conhecimento para o período pós-petróleo.

Para o especialista da Coppe/UFRJ, o Brasil não pode renunciar ao óleo do pré-sal porque essa “é uma riqueza importante para o Brasil” por ser uma fonte de energia competitiva. Dessa forma, ele acrescenta, a extração do pré-sal deverá render frutos positivos ao país. “No Brasil, ainda com tanta desigualdade, não podemos abdicar dessas riquezas”, diz. “Se não forem exploradas, talvez, daqui a 50 anos o preço do petróleo não valha metade dos valores atuais.” Por enquanto, Estefen acrescenta, não existe nenhum combustível capaz de substituir o petróleo e nem previsões para os próximos 20 anos, aproximadamente. Além disso, a demanda por essa energia tende a aumentar muito em função do aumento da população e da demanda de países, principalmente nos países asiáticos.

Demonstrando a mesma opinião, o professor Ricardo Cabral de Azevedo, do Departamento de Engenharia de Minas e de Petróleo da Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo (Poli/USP), considera ideal o país investir no conhecimento para substituir o uso do combustível fóssil, paulatinamente, em uma tentativa de minimizar os impactos ambientais. “O fato é que sempre haverá riscos, nessa ou em qualquer outra atividade, mas o ser humano ainda precisa do petróleo”, lembra. “Desse modo, o fundamental é procurarmos reduzi-los ao máximo. Aí também as experiências do passado são fundamentais, para aprendermos com os erros já cometidos.”

O eventual retorno socioeconômico proporcionado pela exploração de petróleo na camada pré-sal compensam os riscos ambientais, na observação do pesquisador e professor Eustáquio Vinícius de Castro, do Laboratório de Petróleo da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES). “Compensam desde que as coisas aconteçam de forma inteligente e sustentável e com racionalidade no processo de produção”, diz. ” Hoje, as empresas petrolíferas, que no passado foram mais poluentes, adotam mais segurança no processo de extração do petróleo, mesmo que alguns problemas aconteçam de vez em quando”.

Dimensão – O petróleo na camada pré-sal ocupa, aproximadamente, uma área de 800 km de comprimento por 200 km de largura, acompanhando a linha do litoral sudeste brasileiro. Segundo dados da Petrobras, desde 2006, foram perfurados mais de 80 poços, tanto na Bacia de Santos quanto na de Campos, com índice “de sucesso exploratório” acima de 80%. A estimativa é de que outras 19 novas plataformas entrem em operação até 2016; e outras 19 entrem em atividade até 2020. Segundo dados de suas assessoria de imprensa, a companhia petrolífera, líder na exploração do pré-sal, encomendou ainda 21 plataformas de produção e 28 sondas de exploração marítima a serem construídas até 2020 no País, além de 49 navios-tanque e centenas de barcos de apoio e serviços offshore.

Cerveja peronista ou radical? (AFP)

18.3.2013

http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/video/cerveja-peronista-ou-radical-172050795.html

Na Argentina, a polarização está presente até mesmo no álcool. Peronistas e radicais, rivais históricos, preparam a própria cerveja artesanal, deixando no produto uma marca ideológica. Daniel Narezo, Dono do bar Perón Perón “Não é um negócio comercialmente rentável, a ideia é mostrar que podemos vencer o capitalismo mais brutal com a inteligência. Dizer que qualquer um pode ter um lugar no mercado, se se esforçar e pensar. Bem, então tudo isso resultou na cerveja peronista”. No café Perón Perón, santuário do partido fundado pelo líder em 1945, é possível saborear diferentes variedades de cerveja: como a “Evita”, em homenagem a defensora dos pobres, ou a “Doble K” em honra ao ex-presidente Néstor Kirchner e sua esposa e sucessora Cristina. Como um sinal de tolerância, o bar também exibe uma garrafa de Hipólita, confeccionada pelo partido opositor União Cívica Radical. Esta cerveja é feita de forma caseira, no bairro de Caballito, em Buenos Aires. As redes sociais são o principal meio de venda da Hipólita. Leandro Villani, Criador da cerveja Hipólita:”Como é a única cerveja radical em todo o país, ficou conhecida no boca a boca, muitos quiseram provar por simpatia ao partido, pelo rótulo ou pela recordação mesmo. Não é como o justicialismo que tem seu vinho há anos. Nós, radicais, não tínhamos nada, até que surgiu a Hipólita”. O nome é inspirado em Hipólito Yrigoyen, dirigente da União Cívica Radical e primeiro presidente eleito por voto popular na Argentina, em 1916. Em ambos os casos, a cerveja é usada como desculpa para incentivar o debate político. Daniel Narezo, Dono do bar Perón Perón “Este bar, foi idealizado como os bares de Paris em 1800 e 1900, que eram lugares onde as pessoas, intelectuais, artistas, políticos, sentavam para discutir o destino de uma nação”.Apesar das diferenças históricas, os dois produtores reconhecem a qualidade da cerveja rival. E também não descartam, algum dia, beber uma rodada juntos.

Making a New Economy: Getting Cooperative (Truthout)

Saturday, 16 March 2013 00:00By David MorganTruthout | Op-Ed

Hands together(Image: Hands together via Shutterstock)

A new economy is coming. While Wall Street banks are on a trend of corporate mergers and acquisitions, Main Street businesses are generating community wealth while undergoing a transition of their own. Traditional companies are becoming worker cooperatives, both to sustain during tough economic times and because years of success have enabled these companies to reward their workers. State and local governments are beginning to get wise to this trend, too, adding legislative influence to an already vibrant movement.

Take the example of Zingerman’s Community of Businesses, an umbrella company that runs a fleet of food service outfits based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Over the course of more than 30 years, Zingerman’s has become a statewide destination for food lovers, and their owners have become business community luminaries. Nearly 600 employees work in the eight distinct businesses that comprise the Zingerman’s Community, generating annual revenues of $46 million. Inc. Magazine once rated Zingerman’s among the coolest companies in the States, and the very same leaders whose vision has been so celebrated are now designing a plan to transition Zingerman’s to an employee-owned worker cooperative. When the transition is complete, Zingerman’s will be among the largest worker co-ops in the United States.

“It’s exciting to see so many of these transitions happening today, and when a relatively large and remarkably successful company like Zingerman’s moves in this direction, it says something powerful about the possibilities of the Next Economy,” says John Abrams of South Mountain Company. Abrams is advising Zingerman’s on its transition, and brings more than 25 years of experience to the Zingerman’s table. In 1987, Abrams was among those who transitioned his workplace, a design/build firm in Massachusetts named South Mountain Company, to a worker-owned cooperative. “Ownership is a very big deal,” he explains, “and when the people who are making the decisions share in both the rewards and the consequences of those decisions, it’s natural that better decisions result.”

Putting decision-making power in the employees’ hands can keep a local economy going in tough times, and create stable jobs that are far less likely to disappear in times of crisis. The high-profile example of Chicago’s Republic Windows & Doors is one such case of a transition born out of conflict and economic strife. In late 2008, Bank of America cancelled the company’s line of credit, driving it into bankruptcy, and the workers were set to be laid off without their due severance pay or other benefits. Days later, the embattled workers occupied the factory and took control of what the bank had threatened to take away. Assisted by many players in the cooperative movement, those same workers who occupied Republic Windows & Doors have since decided to take permanent control of the company and turn it into a cooperative called New Era Windows.

These recent conversions draw from deep roots. Businesses transitioning today enjoy a broad support network of co-ops drawing from decades of experience. Pioneering company conversions include the 25-year-old Collective Copies of western Massachusetts, whose unionized, striking employees pooled their skills and experience to change over the failing and exploitative Gnomon Copies, revitalizing, strengthening, and updating it to a modern, collectively-run print shop.

These historical examples and the current economic climate are convincing municipalities across the country that transitioning to a co-op-focused economy is a good idea. Recently, two dozen city officials met in Reading, Pennsylvania, to discuss boosting the local economy by creating co-ops, and the mayor of Richmond, California, created a co-op development position to advise the city government.

The picture isn’t as rosy elsewhere in the country, however. “You can’t even form a cooperative in every state in the US,” says Melissa Hoover, president of the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, because “the legal form simply does not exist in some states.” Indeed, even among cooperative enterprises, only one percent are worker-owned.

As one of the five states that offer worker cooperatives an official business identity, Massachusetts leads the way in supporting worker cooperatives. Legislation is currently on the table that would formalize and clarify the transition process for companies looking to become worker-owned. The new laws would require business owners to notify their workers when they intend to sell the company, making it clear to employees that they are eligible to purchase or bid on the company. It would also give the employees the right of first refusal.

Where co-ops don’t already have a foothold, advocacy groups are making strides, including the formative New Orleans Cooperative Development Project, which describes itself as “a community consortium to facilitate the startup and development of worker-owned cooperative businesses in the region.” In the midwest, the Cincinnati Union Co-op Initiative, pairs United Steelworkers – the largest US-based union – with the Mondragon Cooperative Complex, the largest co-op worker system in the world.

“To survive the boom and bust, bubble-driven economic cycles fueled by Wall Street, we must look for new ways to create and sustain good jobs on Main Street,” Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers, told The Nation last year. “Worker-ownership can provide the opportunity to figure out collective alternatives to layoffs, bankruptcies and closings.”

The cooperative movement enjoys growing acceptance in the business community, aided by visionary political leadership that recognizes the value of community resilience. A crucial part of the co-op movement is how it integrates with our communities; each new co-op makes the economy more accountable to the people who live on Main Street, and has the power to change how we will build a new economy.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Não faltam avisos: cuidado com o clima (Envolverde)

Ambiente

18/3/2013 – 11h05

por Washington Novaes*

clima 300x225 Não faltam avisos: cuidado com o clima

Foto: Divulgação/ Internet

É preciso insistir e insistir: as grandes cidades brasileiras – mas não apenas elas – precisam criar com urgência políticas do clima que as habilitem a enfrentar com eficiência os “desastres naturais”, cada vez mais frequentes e intensos e que provocam um número cada vez maior de mortos e outras vítimas; precisam arrancar do fundo das gavetas projetos que permitam evitar inundações em áreas urbanas; criar planos diretores que incorporem as novas informações nessa área; rever os padrões de construção, já obsoletos, concebidos em outras épocas, para condições climáticas muito mais amenas – e que se mostram cada vez mais vulneráveis a desabamentos; incorporar as universidades nessa busca de formatos científicos e tecnológicos.

Segundo este jornal (21/2), de 12 locais alagados em uma semana no mês passado na cidade de São Paulo, 11 já sofriam com inundações há 20 anos – entre eles, alguns dos pontos com mais veículos e pessoas, como o Vale do Anhangabaú, a Avenida 23 de Maio, a Rua Turiaçu. E a Prefeitura de São Paulo promete desengavetar 79 obras antienchentes, algumas delas abafadas há 15 anos. Inacreditável. O governo do Estado assegura que vai trabalhar em 14 piscinões (outros 30 caberão a parcerias público-privadas), além de aplicar mais R$ 317 milhões em desassoreamento do Rio Tietê, onde já foi gasto R$ 1,7 bilhão (terá de gastar muito mais enquanto não decidir atuar nas dezenas de afluentes do rio sob o asfalto, que carregam sedimentos, lixo, esgotos, etc.). A população paulistana ficará muito grata – ela e 1 milhão de pessoas que entram e saem diariamente da cidade (Estado, 27/2).

Enquanto não houver uma ação enérgica na área do clima e na revisão dos padrões de construção em toda parte, continuaremos assim, como nas últimas semanas: obra irregular provoca desabamento de prédio na Liberdade e mata pedestre (1.ª/3); edifício de 20 andares desaba no Rio e arrasta mais dois, com 22 mortos (25/1); desabamento de lajes em construção de 13 pavimentos em São Bernardo do Campo mata duas pessoas (6/2); enchente em fábrica mata quatro em Sorocaba; inundação no Rio mata cinco pessoas (8/3); homem salva três pessoas e morre junto com um estudante, levados pela enxurrada durante temporal de cinco horas no Ipiranga, quando caiu um terço da chuva prevista para o mês e fez transbordar o Tamanduateí (11/3); deslizamento na moderna Rodovia dos Imigrantes mata uma pessoa e interrompe o tráfego (22/2), numa chuva de 183,4 milímetros, algumas vezes mais do que o índice médio de chuvas em um mês na região. Até o Arquivo Nacional, no Rio de Janeiro, perdeu mais de 130 caixas de documentos históricos num temporal no centro da cidade (10/3).

Não pode haver ilusões. O Brasil já está em quinto lugar entre os países que mais têm sofrido com desastres climáticos. O Semiárido, em outubro último, teve o mês mais seco em 83 anos, segundo o Operador Nacional do Sistema Elétrico (Estado, 31/10); 10 milhões de pessoas foram atingidas em mais de 1300 municípios. O Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas, órgão da Convenção do Clima, este ano só divulgará parte de seu novo relatório, mas seu secretário-geral, Rajendra Pachauri, já adverte que é preciso “espalhar a preocupação”, de vez que, com o aumento da temperatura, até 2050, entre 2 e 2,4 graus Celsius, o nível dos oceanos se elevará entre 0,4 e 1,4 metro – mas poderá ser mais, com o avanço do degelo no Ártico (Guardian, 28/2).

Não é por acaso, assim, que o sistema escolar público dos Estados Unidos já tenha, este ano, incorporado as questões do clima a seu currículo para os alunos. E que o Conselho da União Europeia tenha aprovado 20% do seu orçamento – ou 960 bilhões – para políticas e ações nessa área. Porque as informações são altamente preocupantes. Como as da Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e a Agricultura (9/3) de que duplicou, de 1970 para cá, a superfície de terras afetadas pela seca no mundo; ou a de que as emissões de dióxido de carbono CO2 por desmatamento, atividades agrícolas e outros formatos, entre 1990 e 2010, cresceram muito – e o Brasil responde por 25,8 bilhões de toneladas equivalentes de CO2, seguido pela Indonésia (13,1 bilhões de toneladas) e pela Nigéria (3,8 bilhões).

Os problemas com o clima, diz a Universidade de Reading (1.º/3), indicam que será preciso aumentar a produtividade na agricultura em 12% a partir de 2016, para compensar as perdas e as mudanças nos ambientes. A vegetação nas latitudes mais ao norte da América está mudando, começa a assemelhar-se à das áreas mais ao sul, segundo a Nasa (UPI, 12/3), que analisou o período 1982-2011; e lembra que as atividades no campo terão de adaptar-se. Também há alterações muito fortes em outras regiões, como nos Rios Tigre e Eufrates, que em sete anos (2003-2010) perderam 144 quilômetros cúbicos de água, equivalentes ao volume do Mar Morto (O Globo, 14/2).

Em toda parte as informações inquietam. Universidades da Flórida, por exemplo (Huffpost Miami, 12/3), alertam que será preciso transplantar três grandes estações de tratamento de esgotos no sul do Estado para evitar que elas fiquem “confinadas em ilhas” em menos de 50 anos, por causa da elevação do nível do mar. O almirante Samuel J. Locklear III, comandante da frota norte-americana no Pacífico, diz que essa elevação do nível dos oceanos “é a maior ameaça à segurança”. E que China e Índia precisam preparar-se para socorrer e evacuar centenas de milhares ou milhões de pessoas.

Retornando ao início deste artigo: as cidades brasileiras não podem adiar o enfrentamento das mudanças do clima, principalmente quanto a inundações e deslizamentos de terras (o Brasil tem mais de 5 milhões de pessoas em áreas de risco). Segundo a revista New Scientist (20/10/2012), 32 mil pessoas morreram no mundo, entre 2004 e 2010, em eventos dessa natureza (em terremotos, 80 mil). Não faltam avisos.

Washington Novaes é jornalista.

** Publicado originalmente no site O Estado de S. Paulo.

Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change (Bloomberg)

By Mark Drajem – Mar 15, 2013 12:50 PM GMT-0300

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg. Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.

President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

“If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Illinois Speech

The president is scheduled to deliver a speech on energy today at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. He is pressing Congress to create a $2 billion clean-energy research fund with fees paid by oil and gas producers.

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays.

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.

Keystone Pipeline

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)

If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity inWashington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“The real danger is the delays,” said Eisenberg of the manufacturers’ group. “I don’t think the answer is ever going to be ‘no,’ but it can confound things.”

Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Qualityto issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

Environmental Impact

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publish the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Those reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action. They do provide a chance for citizens and environmentalists to weigh in before regulators decide on an action — and to challenge those reviews in court if it’s cleared.

“Each agency currently differs in how their NEPA reviews consider the climate change impacts of projects, as well as how climate change impacts such as extreme weather will affect projects,” Taryn Tuss, a Council on Environmental Quality spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “CEQ is working to incorporate the public input we received on the draft guidance, and will release updated guidance when it is completed.”

‘Major Shakeup’

The new standards will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews, said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco.

The White House is looking at requiring consideration of both the increase in greenhouse gases and a project’s vulnerability to flooding, drought or other extreme weather that might result from global warming, according to an initial proposal it issued in 2010. Those full reports would be required for projects with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.

The initial draft exempted federal land and resource decisions from the guidance, although CEQ said it was assessing how to handle those cases. Federal lands could be included in the final standards.

The White House guidance itself won’t force any projects to be stopped outright. Instead, it’s likely to prompt lawsuits against federal projects on these grounds, and increase the probability that courts will step in and order extensive reviews as part of the “adequate analysis” required in the law, said George Mannina, an attorney at Nossaman LLP in Washington.

Next Administration

“The question is: Where does this analysis take us?” he said. “Adequate analysis may be much broader than the agency and applicant might consider.”

While the Obama administration’s guidance could be easily rescinded by the next administration, the court rulings that stem from these cases will live on as precedents, Mannina said.

Lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association weighed in with the White House against including climate in NEPA, a law initially aimed at chemical leaks or air pollution.

“Not only will this result in additional delay of the NEPA process, but will result in speculative and inaccurate modeling that will have direct impacts on approval of specific projects,” the National Mining Association in Washington wrote in comments to the White House in 2010.

Leases Challenged

The group represents Arch Coal (ACI) and Peabody, both based in St. Louis. Leases that theDepartment of Interior issued for those companies to mine for coal in Wyoming are facing lawsuits from environmental groups, arguing that the agency didn’t adequately tally up the effect on global warming from burning that coal.

Given Obama’s pledge to address global warming, “this is a massive contradiction,” said Jeremy Nichols, director of climate at WildEarth Guardians in Denver, which filed lawsuits against the leases.

Arch Coal referred questions to the mining group.

Beth Sutton, a Peabody spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, “We believe the current regulatory approach to surface mine permits is appropriate and protects the environment.”

Since CEQ first announced its proposal, more than three dozen federal approvals were challenged on climate grounds, including a highway project in North Carolina, a methane-venting plan for a coal mine in Colorado, and a research facility in California, according to a chart compiled by the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Next Target

The next target is TransCanada (TRP)’s application to build the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone pipeline. The Sierra Club and 350.org drew 35,000 people to Washington last month to urge Obama to reject the pipeline. Meanwhile, the NEPA review by the State Department included an initial analysis of carbon released when the tar sands are refined into gasoline and used in vehicles.

It stopped short, however, of saying the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. With or without the pipeline, the oil sands will be mined and used as fuel, the report said. That finding is likely to be disputed in court if the Obama administration clears the project.

“Keystone is ground zero,” said Snape, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Clearly this will come into play, and it will be litigated.”

Any actions by the administration now on global warming would pick up on a mixed record over the past four years.

Cap-and-Trade

While Obama failed to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA reversed course from the previous administration and ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions endanger public health, opening the way for the agency to regulate it.

Using that finding, the agency raised mileage standards for automobiles and proposed rules for new power plants that would essentially outlaw the construction of new coal-fired power plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology.

Environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say the most important action next will be the EPA’s rules for existing power plants, the single biggest source of carbon-dioxide emissions. The NEPA standards are separate from those rules, and will affect how the federal government itself is furthering global warming.

“Agencies do a pretty poor job of looking at climate change impacts,” Rebecca Judd, a legislative counsel at the environmental legal group Earthjustice in Washington. “A thorough guidance would help alleviate that.”

The Folly of Defunding Social Science (Huffington Post)

Scott Atran

Posted: 03/15/2013 10:55 pm

With the so-called sequester geared to cut billions of dollars to domestic programs, military funding, social services, and government-sponsored scientific research — including about a 6 percent reduction for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation — policymakers and professionals are scrambling to stave off the worst by resetting priorities. One increasingly popular proposal among congressional budget hawks is to directly link federal funding of science to graduate employment data that seriously underestimates the importance and impact of social sciences to the nation at large, in order to effectively justify eliminating social science from the federal research budget. For example, federal legislation introduced by Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), would require states to match information from unemployment insurance databases with individual student data and publish the results, which would show earnings by program at each institution of higher education. But educators and economists note that measuring return on investment via salary alone is too simplistic: liberal arts majors often start out at lower salaries but make more than their peers in later decades. Even more worrisome, in the guise of practicality, such maneuvers offer up a not-so-veiled attempt to justify eliminating government funding for the social sciences, perilously underestimating their importance and impact to the economy and national welfare.

In a major speech last month, Eric Cantor, the U.S. House majority leader, proposed outright to defund political and social science: “Funds currently spent by the government on social science — including on politics of all things — would be better spent on curing diseases.” Cantor’s call to gut the federal research budget for social science echoes Florida governor Rick Scott’s push to eliminate state funding for disciplines like anthropology and psychology in favor of “degrees where people can get jobs,” especially in technology and medicine. Targeting the social sciences with little understanding of their content is an old story for legislature looking to score cheap political points. The late Sen. William Proxmire (D-Ark.) used to scour the titles of NSF-funded projects in psychology and anthropology, looking for recipients of his Golden Fleece Awards without bothering to examine the results of the research he myopically pilloried. Such shenanigans ignore the fact that social science research provides precise knowledge that is relevant to people’s practical needs and the nation’s economic and security priorities. Most government laws, programs, and outlays directly concern social issues, including the establishment and means of government itself, and the need for law enforcement, military capabilities, education, and commerce.

Gutting social science also undermines national security. For, despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars poured into the global war on terrorism, radicalization against our country’s core interests continues to spread — and social science offers better ways than war to turn the tide. Moreover, social science is in fact moving the “hard” sciences forward. For example, recent research based on social science modeling of cancer cells as cooperative agents in competition with communities of healthy cells holds the promise of more effective cancer treatment. Those who would defund social science seriously misconstrue the relationship between the wide-ranging freedom of scientific research and its ability to unlock the deeper organizing principles linking seemingly unrelated phenomena.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a Republic with an enlightened citizenry educated in “all philosophical Experiments that Light into the Nature of Things … and multiply the Conveniences or Pleasures of Life” — not just technical training for jobs that pay well.

Social Warfare (Foreign Policy)

Budget hawks’ plans to cut funding for political and social science aren’t just short-sighted and simple-minded — they’ll actually hurt national security.

BY SCOTT ATRAN | MARCH 15, 2013

With the automatic sequestration cuts geared up to slash billions of dollars from domestic programs, military funding, social services, and government-sponsored scientific research — including about a 6 percent reduction for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) — policymakers and professionals are scrambling to stave off the worst by resetting priorities. In a major speech last month, House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), proposed outright to defund political and social science: “Funds currently spent by the government on social science — including on politics of all things — would be better spent on curing diseases,” he said, echoing a similar proposal he made in 2009. Florida Governor Rick Scott has made a similar push, proposing to divert state funds from disciplines like anthropology and psychology “to degrees where people can get jobs,” especially in technology and medicine. Those are fighting words, but they’re also simple-minded.

Social science may sound like a frivolous expenditure to legislative budget hawks, but far from trimming fat, defunding these programs would fundamentally undercut core national interests. Like it or not, social science research informs everything from national security to technology development to healthcare and economic management. For example, we can’t decide which drugs to take, unless their risks and benefits are properly assessed, and we can’t know how much faith to have in a given science or engineering project, unless we know how much to trust expert judgment. Likewise, we can’t fully prepare to stop our adversaries, unless we understand the limits of our own ability to see why others see the world differently. Despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars poured into the global war on terrorism, radicalization against our country’s core interests continues to spread — and social science offers better ways than war to turn the tide.

In support of Rep. Cantor’s push to defund political and social science, a recent article in theAtlantic notes that “money [that] could have gone to towards life-saving cancer research” instead went to NSF-sponsored projects that “lack real-world impact” such as “the $750,000 spent studying the ‘sacred values‘ involved in cultural conflict.” Perhaps the use of words like “sacred” or “culture” incites such scorn, but as often occurs in many denunciations of social science, scant attention is actually paid to what the science proposes or produces. In fact, the results of this particular project — which I direct — have figured into numerous briefings to the National Security Staff at the White HouseSenate and House committees, the Department of State and Britain’s Parliament, and the Israeli Knesset (including the prime minister and defense minister). In addition, the research offices of the Department of Defense have also supported my team’s work, which figures prominently in recent strategy assessments that focus on al Qaeda and broader problems of radicalization and political violence.

Let me try to explain just exactly what it is that we do. My research team conducts laboratory experiments, including brain imaging studies — supported by field work with political leaders, revolutionaries, terrorists, and others — that show sacred values to be core determinants of personal and social identity (“who I am” and “who we are”). Humans process these identities as moral rules, duties, and obligations that defy the utilitarian and instrumental calculations ofrealpolitik or the marketplace. Simply put, people defending a sacred value will not trade its incarnation (Israel’s settlements, Iran’s nuclear fuel rods, America’s guns) for any number of iPads, or even for peace.

The sacred values of “devoted actors,” it turns out, generate actions independent of calculated risks, costs, and consequences — a direct contradiction of prevailing “rational actor” models of politics and economics, which focus on material interests. Devoted actors, in contrast, act because they sincerely and deeply believe “it’s the right thing to do,” regardless of risks or rewards. Practically, this means that such actors often harness deep and abiding social and political commitments to confront much stronger foes. Think of the American revolutionaries, who were willing to sacrifice “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” in the fight for liberty against the greatest military power of the age — or modern suicide bombers willing to sacrifice everything for their cause.

Sacred values — as when land becomes “Holy Land” — sustain the commitment of revolutionaries and some terrorist groups to resist, and often overcome, more numerous and better-equipped militaries and police that function with measured rewards like better pay or promotion. Our research with political leaders and general populations also shows that sacred values — not political games or economics — underscore intractable conflicts like those between the Israelis and the Palestinians that defy the rational give-and-take of business-like negotiation. Field experiments in Israel, Palestine, Nigeria, and the United States indicate that commitment to such values can motivate and sustain wars beyond reasonable costs and casualties.

So what are the practical implications of these findings? Perhaps most importantly, our research explains why efforts to broker peace that rely on money or other material incentives are doomed when core values clash. In our studies with colleagues in Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iran, the Levant, and North Africa, we found that offers of material incentives to compromise on sacred values often backfire, actually increasing anger and violence toward a deal. For example, a 2010 study of attitudes toward Iran’s nuclear program found that most Iranians do not view the country’s nuclear program as sacred. But for about 13 percent of the population, the program has been made sacred through religious rhetoric. This group, which tends to be close to the regime, now believes a nuclear program is bound up with the national identity and with Islam itself. As a result, offering these people material rewards or punishments to abandon the program only increases their anger and support for it. Predictably, new sanctions, or heightened perception of sanctions, generate even more belligerent statements and actions by the regime to increase the pace, industrial capacity, and level of uranium enrichment. Of course, majority discontent with sanctions may yet force the regime to change course, or to double down on repression.

Understanding how this process plays out over time is a key to helping friends, thwarting enemies, and managing conflict. The ultimate goal of such research is to help save lives, resources, and national treasure. And by generating psychological knowledge about how culturally diverse individuals and groups advance values and interests that are potentially compatible or fundamentally antagonistic to our own, it can help keep the nation’s citizens, soldiers, and potential allies out of harm’s way. Our related research on the spiritual and material aspects of environmental disputes between Native American and majority-culture populations in North America andCentral America has also revealed surprising but practical ways to reduce conflict andsustainably manage forest commons and wildlife.

The would-be defunders of social science denounce an ivory tower that seems to exist only in their imagination — willfully ignoring evidence-based reasoning and results in order to advance a political agenda. Only $11 million of the NSF’s $7 billion-plus budget goes to political science research. It is exceedingly doubtful that getting rid of the entire NSF political science budget, which is equal to 0.5 percent of the cost of a single B-2 bomber, would really help to produce life-saving cancer research, where testing for even a single drug can cost more to develop than a B-2. Not that we must choose between either, mind you.

Social science is in fact moving the “hard” sciences forward. Consider the irony: a close collaborator on the “sacred values” project, Robert Axelrod, former president of the American Political Science Association, recently produced a potentially groundbreaking cancer study based on social science modeling of cancer cells as cooperative agents in competition with communities of healthy cells. Independent work by cancer researchers in the United States and abroad hasestablished that the cooperation among tumor cells that Axelrod and colleagues proposed does in fact take place in cell lines derived from human cancers, which has significant implications for the development of effective treatments.

Research from other fields of social science, including social and cognitive psychology and anthropology, continue to have deep implications for an enormous range of human problems: including how to better design and navigate transportation and communication networks, or manage airline crews and cockpits; on programming robots for industry and defense; on modeling computer systems and cybersecurity; on reconfiguring emergency medical care and diagnoses; in building effective responses to economic uncertainty; and enhancing industrial competitiveness and innovation. For example, perhaps the greatest long-term menace to the security of U.S. industry and defense is cyberwarfare, where the most insidious and hard-to-manage threat may stem not from hardware or software vulnerabilities but from “wetware,” the inclinations and biases of socially interacting human brains — as in just doing a friend a favor (like “click this link” or “can I borrow your flash drive?”). In recognition of that fact, Axelrod has suggested to the White House and Defense Department an “honor code” encouraging individuals to not only maintain cybersecurity themselves, but also not to lapse into doing favors for friends and to report such lapses in others.

Elected officials have the mandate to set priorities for research funding in the national interest. Ever since Abraham Lincoln established the National Academy of Sciences, however, a clear priority has been to allow scientific inquiry fairly free rein — to doubt, challenge, and ultimately change received wisdom if based on solid logic and evidence. What Rep. Cantor and like-minded colleagues seem to be saying is that this is fine, but only in the fields they consider expedient: in technology, medicine, and business. (Though possibly they mean to make an exception for the lucrative social science of polling, which can help to sell almost anything — even terrible ideas like defunding the rest of social science.)

It’s stunning to think that these influential politicians and the people who support them don’t want evidence-based reasoning and research to inform decisions concerning the nature and needs of our society — despite the fact that the vast majority of federal and state legislation deals with social issues, rather than technology or defense. To be sure, there is significant waste and wrongheadedness in the social sciences, as there is in any science (in fact, in any evolutionary process that progresses by trial and error), including, most recently, billions spent on possibly misleading use of mice in cancer research.

But those who would defund social science seriously underestimate the relationship between the wide-ranging freedom of scientific research and its pointed impact, and between theory and practice: Where disciplined imagination sweeps broadly to discover, say, that devoted actors do not respond to material incentives or disincentives (e.g., sanctions) in the same way that rational actors do, or that communities of people and body cells may share deep underlying organizational principles and responses to threats from outside aggressors, such knowledge can have a profound influence on our lives and wellbeing.

Even before they revolted in 1776, the American colonists may have already enjoyed the world’s highest standard of living. But they wanted something different: a free and progressive society, which money couldn’t buy. “Money has never made man happy, nor will it,” gibed Ben Franklin, but “if a man empties his purse into his head no one can take it away from him; an investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.” He founded America’s first learned society “to improve the common stock of knowledge,” which called for inquiry into many practical matters as well as “all philosophical Experiments that Light into the Nature of Things … and multiply the Conveniences or Pleasures of Life.” George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and John Marshall all joined Franklin’s society and took part in the political, social, and economic revolution it helped spawn. Like the Founding Fathers, we want our descendants to be able to envision great futures for our country and a better world for all. For that, our children need the broad understanding of how the world works that the social sciences can provide — not just a technical education for well-paying jobs.

When It Rains These Days, Does It Pour? Has the Weather Become Stormier as the Climate Warms? (Science Daily)

Mar. 17, 2013 — There’s little doubt — among scientists at any rate — that the climate has warmed since people began to release massive amounts greenhouse gases to the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution.

But ask a scientist if the weather is getting stormier as the climate warms and you’re likely to get a careful response that won’t make for a good quote.

There’s a reason for that.

“Although many people have speculated that the weather will get stormier as the climate warms, nobody has done the quantitative analysis needed to show this is indeed happening,” says Jonathan Katz, PhD, professor of physics at Washington University in St. Louis.

In the March 17 online version ofNature Climate Change, Katz and Thomas Muschinksi, a senior in physics who came to Katz looking for an undergraduate thesis project, describe the results of their analysis of more than 70 years of hourly precipitation data from 13 U.S. sites looking for quantitative evidence of increased storminess.

They found a significant, steady increase in storminess on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, which famously suffers from more or less continuous drizzle, a calm climate that lets storm peaks emerge clearly.

“Other sites have always been stormy,” Katz says, “so an increase such as we saw in the Olympic Peninsula data would not have been detectable in their data.”

They may also be getting stormier, he says, but so far they’re doing it under cover.

The difference between wetter and stormier

“We didn’t want to know whether the rainfall had increased or decreased,” Katz says, “but rather whether it was concentrated in violent storm events.”

Studies that look at the largest one-day or few-day precipitation totals recorded in a year, or the number of days in which in which total precipitation is above a threshold, measure whether locations are getting wetter, not whether they’re getting stormier, says Katz.

To get the statistical power to pick up brief downpours rather than total precipitation, Muschinski and Katz needed to find a large, fine-grained dataset.

“So we poked around,” Katz says, “and we found what we were looking for in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration databases.”

NOAA has hourly precipitation data going back to 1940 or even further for many locations in the United States. Muschniski and Katz chose 13 sites that had long runs of data and represented a broad range of climates, from desert to rain forest.

They then tested the hypothesis that storms are becoming more frequent and intense by taking different measurements of the “shape” formed by the data points for each site.

Measuring these “moments” as they’re called, is a statistical test commonly used in science, says Katz, but one that hasn’t been applied to this problem before.

“We found a significant steady increase in stormy activity on the Olympic Peninsula,” Katz says. “We know that is real.”

“We found no evidence for an increase in storminess at the other 12 sites,” he said, “but because their weather is intrinsically stormier, it would be more difficult to detect a trend like that at the Olympic Peninsula even if it were occurring.”

The next step, Katz says, is to look at a much large number of sites that might be regionally averaged to reveal trends too slow to be significant for one site.

“There are larger databases,” he says, “but they’re also harder to sift through. Any one site might have half a million hourly measurements over the period we’re looking at, and to get good results. we have to devise an algorithm tuned to the database to filter out spurious or corrupted data.”

You could call that a rainy-day project.

Journal Reference:

  1. T. Muschinski, J. I. Katz. Trends in hourly rainfall statistics in the United States under a warming climateNature Climate Change, 2013; DOI:10.1038/nclimate1828

David Graeber: Some Remarks on Consensus (Occupy Wall Street)

Posted on Feb. 26, 2013, 3:37 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt 

the medium is the message

As part of our recent series on Occupy and consensus, we are posting this timely piece by David Graeber, originally published at OccupyWallStreet.net

There has been a flurry of discussion around process in OWS of late. This can only be a good thing. Atrophy and complacency are the death of movements. Any viable experiment in freedom is pretty much going to have to constantly re-examine itself, see what’s working and what isn’t—partly because situations keep changing, partly because we’re trying to invent a culture of democracy in a society where almost no one really has any experience in democratic decision-making, and most have been told for most of their lives that it would be impossible, and partly just because it’s all an experiment, and it’s in the nature of experiments that sometimes they don’t work.

A lot of this debate has centered around the role of consensus. This is healthy too, because there seem to be a lot of misconceptions floating around about what consensus is and is supposed to be about. Some of these misconceptions are so basic, though, I must admit I find them a bit startling.

Just one telling example. Justine Tunney recently wrote a piece called “Occupiers: Stop Using Consensus!” that begins by describing it as “the idea that a group must strictly adhere to a protocol where all decisions are unanimous”—and then goes on to claim that OWS used such a process, with disastrous results. This is bizarre. OWS never used absolute consensus. On the very first meeting on August 2, 2011 we established we’d use a form of modified consensus with a fallback to a two-thirds vote. Anyway, the description is wrong even if we had been using absolute consensus (an approach nowadays rarely used in groups of over 20 or 30 people), since consensus is not a system of unanimous voting, it’s a system where any participant has the right to veto a proposal which they consider either to violate some fundamental principle, or which they object to so fundamentally that proceeding would cause them to quit the group. If we can have people who have been involved with OWS from the very beginning who still don’t know that much, but think consensus is some kind of “strict” unanimous voting system, we’ve got a major problem. How could anyone have worked with OWS that long and still remained apparently completely unaware of the basic principles under which we were supposed to be operating?

Granted, this seems to be an extreme case. But it reflects a more general confusion. And it exists on both sides of the argument: both some of the consensus’ greatest supporters, and its greatest detractors, seem to think “consensus” is a formal set of rules, analogous to Roberts’ Rules of Order, which must be strictly observed, or thrown away. This certainly was not what people who first developed formal process thought that they were doing! They saw consensus as a set of principles, a commitment to making decisions in a spirit of problem-solving, mutual respect, and above all, a refusal of coercion. It was an attempt to create processes that could work in a truly free society. None of them, even the most legalistic, were so presumptuous to claim those were the only procedures that could ever work in a free society. That would have been ridiculous.

Let me return to this point in a moment. First,

1) CONSENSUS IS “A WHITE THING” (OR A MIDDLE CLASS WHITE THING, OR AN ELITIST FORM OF OPPRESSION, ETC)

The first thing to be said about this statement is that this idea is a very American thing. Anyone I mention it to who is not from the United States tends to react to the statement with complete confusion. Even in the US, it is a relatively recent idea, and the product of a very particular set of historical circumstances.

The confusion overseas is due to the fact that almost everywhere except the US, the exact opposite is true. In the Americas, Africa, Asia, Oceania, one finds longstanding traditions of making decisions by consensus, and then, histories of white colonialists coming and imposing Roberts Rules of Order, majority voting, elected representatives, and the whole associated package—by force. South Asian panchayat councils did not operate by majority voting and still don’t unless there has been a direct colonial influence, or by political parties that learned their idea of democracy in colonial schools and government bodies the colonialists set up. The same is true of communal assemblies in Africa. (In China, village assemblies also operated by consensus until the ’50s when the Communist Party imposed majority voting, since Mao felt voting was more “Western” and therefore “modern.”) Almost everywhere in the Americas, indigenous communities use consensus and the white or mestizo descendants of colonialists use majority voting (insofar as they made decisions on an equal basis at all, which mostly they didn’t), and when you find an indigenous community using majority voting, it is again under the explicit influence of European ideas—almost always, along with elected officials, and formal rules of procedure obviously learned in colonial schools or borrowed from colonial regimes. Insofar as anyone is teaching anyone else to use consensus, it’s the other way around: as in the case of the Maya-speaking Zapatista communities who insisted the EZLN adopt consensus over the strong initial objections of Spanish-speaking mestizos like Marcos, or for that matter the white Australian activists I know who told me that student groups in the ’80s and ’90s had to turn to veterans of the Maoist New People’s Army to train them in consensus process—not because Maoists were supposed to believe in consensus, since Mao himself didn’t like the idea, but because NPA guerillas were mostly from rural communities in the Philippines that had always used consensus to make decisions and therefore guerilla units had adopted the same techniques spontaneously.

So where does the idea that consensus is a “white thing” actually come from? Indigenous communities in America all used consensus decision-making instead of voting. Africans brought to the Americas had been kidnapped from communities where consensus was the normal mode of making collective decisions, and violently thrust into a society where “democracy” meant voting (even though they themselves were not allowed to vote.) Meanwhile, the only significant group of white settlers who employed consensus were the Quakers—and even they had developed much of their process under the influence of Native Americans like the Haudenosaunee.

As far as I can make out the ideas comes out of political arguments that surrounded the rise of Black Nationalism in the 1960s. The very first mass movement in the United States that operated by consensus was the SNCC, or Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, a primarily African-American group created in 1960 as a horizontal alternative to Martin Luther King’s (very vertical) SCLC. SNCC operated in a decentralized fashion and used consensus decision-making. It was SNCC for instance that organized the famous “freedom rides” and most of the direct action campaigns of the early ’60s. By 1964, an emerging Black Power faction was looking for an issue with which to isolate and ultimately expel the white members of the group. They seized on consensus as a kind of wedge issue—this made sense, politically, because many of those white allies were Quakers, and it was advantageous, at first, to frame the argument as one of efficiency, rather than being about more fundamental moral and political issues like non-violence. It’s important to emphasize though that the objections to consensus as inefficient and culturally alien that were put forward at the time were not put forward in the name of moving to some other form of direct democracy (i.e., majority voting), but ultimately, part of a rejection of the whole package of horizontality, consensus, and non-violence with the ultimate aim of creating top-down organizational structures that could support much greater militancy. It also corresponded to an overt attack on the place of women in the organization—an organization that had in fact been founded by the famous African-American activist Ella Baker on the principle “strong people don’t need strong leaders.” Stokely Carmichael, the most famous early Black Power advocate in SNCC, notoriously responded to a paper circulated by feminists noting that women seemed to be systematically excluded from positions in the emerging leadership structure by saying as far as he was concerned, “the only position for women in SNCC is prone.”

Within a few years SNCC began to splinter; white allies were expelled in 1965; after a brief merger with the Panthers it split again, and dissolved in the ’70s.

These tensions—challenges to horizontalism and consensus, macho leadership styles, the marginalization of women—were by no means peculiar to SNCC. Similar battles were going on in predominantly white groups: notably SDS, which ultimately ditched consensus too, and ended up splitting between Maoists and Weathermen. This is one reason the feminist movement of the early ’70s, which within the New Left began partly as a reaction to just this kind of macho posturing, embraced consensus as an antidote. (Anarchists only later adopted it from them.) But one point bears emphasizing. It’s important. None of those who challenged consensus did so in the name of a different form of direct democracy. In fact, I’m not aware of any example of an activist group that abandoned consensus and then went on to settle on some different, but equally horizontal approach to decision-making. The end result is invariably abandoning direct democracy entirely Sometimes that’s because, as here, that is explicitly what those challenging consensus want. But even when it’s not, the same thing happens, because moving from consensus sets off a dynamic that inevitably leads in a vertical direction. When consensus is abandoned, some are likely to quit in protest. These are likely to be the most dedicated to horizontal principles. Factions form. Minority factions that consistently lose key votes, and don’t have their concerns incorporated in resulting proposals, will often split off. Since they too are likely to consist of more horizontally oriented participants, the group becomes ever more vertical. Before long, those who never liked direct democracy to begin with start saying it’s what’s really to blame for all these problems, it’s inefficient, things would run far more smoothly with clearly defined leadership roles—and it only takes a vote of 51% of the remaining, much more vertical group, to ditch direct democracy entirely.

Obviously, the widespread perception of consensus process as white isn’t just be a hold-over from events that took place forty years ago. A lot of the problem is that, since the ’70s, consensus process has largely been developed among direct-action oriented groups, and, while there are certainly African-American-based groups operating in what might be called the Ella Baker tradition, most of those groups have been largely white. The reasons are pretty obvious. Those lacking white privilege face much higher levels of state repression, and (unlike, in say, Mexico, or India, where those who face the most repression are generally speaking already organized in semi-autonomous communities that operate at least partly by consensus), in the US, this limits the degree to which it’s possible to engage in creating experimental spaces outside the system. Communities face immediate such practical concerns so pressing many feel working outside the system would be irresponsible. Those who don’t often feel they have no choice but to adopt either strict, rigorous, MLK-style non-violence, or adopt revolutionary militarism like the panthers—both of which tend to lead to top down forms of organization. As a result, the culture of consensus, the style in which it’s conducted, the sensibilities surrounding it, inevitably comes to reflect the white middle-class background of so many of those who have created and shaped it, and the result is that those who do not share these sensibilities feel alienated and excluded. Obviously this is something that urgently needs to be addressed. But the problem here is not with the principles underlying consensus (that all voices have equal weight, that no one be compelled to act against their will), but with the way it’s being done—and the fact that the way it’s being done have the effect of undermining those very principles.

2) RULES VERSUS PRINCIPLES

I think the real problem here is a misunderstanding about what we’re basically arguing about. A lot of people on both sides of the debate seem to think “consensus” is a set of rules. If you follow the rules, you’re doing consensus. If you break the rules, or even do them in the wrong order it’s somehow not. I’ve seen people show up to meetings armed with elaborate diagrams or flow-charts for some kind of formal process downloaded from some web page and insist that only this is the really real thing. So it’s hardly surprising that other people put off by all this, or who see that particular form of process hit some kind of loggerhead, say “well consensus doesn’t work. Let’s try something else.”

As far as I’m concerned both sides completely miss the point.

I’ll say it again. Consensus is not a set of rules. It’s a set of principles. Actually I’d even go so far to say that if you really boil it down, it ultimately comes down to just two principles: everyone should have equal say (call this “equality”), and nobody should be compelled to do anything they really don’t want to do (call this, “freedom.”)

Basically, that’s it. The rules are just a way to try to come to decisions in the spirit of those principles. “Formal consensus process,” in is various manifestations, is just one technique people have made up, over the years, to try to come to group decisions that solve practical problems in a way that ensures no one’s perspective is ignored, and no one is forced to do anything or comply with rules they find truly obnoxious. That’s it. It’s a way to find consensus. It’s not itself “consensus.” Formal process as it exists today has been proved to work pretty well for some kinds of people, under some circumstances. It is obviously completely inappropriate in others. To take an obvious example: most small groups of friends don’t need formal process at all. Other groups might, over time, develop a completely different approach that suits their own dynamics, relations, situation, culture, sensibilities. And there’s absolutely no reason any group can’t improvise an entirely new one if that’s what they want to do. As long as they are trying to create a process that embodies those basic principles, one that gives everyone equal say and doesn’t force anyone to go along with a decision they find fundamentally objectionable, then what they come up with is a form of consensus process—no matter how it operates. After all, it a group of people all decide they want to be bound by a majority decision, well, who exactly is going to stop them? But if they all decide to be bound by a majority decision, then they have reached a consensus (in fact, an absolute consensus) that they want to operate that way. The same would be true if they all decided they wanted to be bound by the decisions of a Ouija Board, or appointed one member of the group Il Duce. Who’s going to stop them? However, for the exact same reason, the moment the majority (or Ouija board, or Il Duce) comes up with a decision to do something that some people think is absolutely outrageous and refuse to do, how exactly is anyone going to force them to go along? Threaten to shoot them? Basically, it could only happen if the majority is somehow in control of some key resource—money, space, connections, a name—and others aren’t. That is, if there is some means of coercion, subtle or otherwise. In the absence of a way to compel people to do things they do not wish to do, you’re ultimately stuck with some kind of consensus whether you like it or not.

The question then is what kind of decision making process is most likely to lead to decisions that no one will object to so fundamentally that they will march off in frustration or simply refuse to cooperate? Sometimes that will be some sort of formal consensus process. In other circumstances that’s the last thing one should try. Still, there’s a reason that 51/49% majority voting is so rarely employed in such circumstances: usually, it is the method least likely to come up with such decisions.

Think of it this way.

Imagine the city is about to destroy some cherished landmark and someone puts up posters calling for people to meet in a nearby square to organize against it. Fifty people show up. Someone says, okay, “I propose we all lay down in front of the bulldozers. Let’s hold a vote.” So 30 people raised their hands yes, and 20 people raise their hands no. Well, what possible reason is there that the 20 people who said no would somehow feel obliged to now go and lay in front of the bulldozers? These were just 50 strangers gathered in a square. Why should the opinions of a majority of a group of strangers oblige the minority to do anything—let alone something which will expose them to personal danger?

The example might seem absurd—who would hold such a vote?—but I experienced something almost exactly like it a few years ago, at an “all-anarchist” meeting called in London before a mass mobilization against the G8. About 200 people showed up at the RampArts Social Center. The facilitator, a syndicalist who disliked consensus, explained that another group had proposed a march, followed by some kind of direct action, and immediately proceeded to hold a vote on whether we, as a group, wanted to join as. Oddly, it did not seem to occur to him that, since we were not in fact a group, but just a bunch of people who had showed up at a meeting, there was no reason to think that those who did not want to join such an action would be swayed by the result. In fact he wasn’t taking a vote at all. He was taking a poll: “how many people are thinking of joining the march?” Now, there’s nothing wrong with polls; arguably, the most helpful thing he could have done under the circumstance was to ask for a show of hands so everyone could see what other people were thinking. The results might even have changed some people’s minds—”well, it looks like a lot of people are going to that march, maybe I will too” (though in this case, in fact, it didn’t.) But the facilitator thought he was actually conducting a vote on what to do, as if they were somehow bound by the decision.

How could he have been so oblivious? Well, he was a syndicalist; unions use majority vote; that’s why he preferred it. But of course, unions are membership-based groups. If you join a union, you are, by the very act of doing so, agreeing to abide by its rules, which includes, accepting majority vote decisions. Those who do not follow the group’s rules can be sanctioned, or even expelled. It simply didn’t occur to him that most unions’ voting system depended on the prior existence of membership rolls, dues, charters, and usually, legal standing—which in effect meant that either everyone who had voluntarily joined the unions was in effect consenting to the rules, or else, if membership was obligatory in a certain shop or industry owing to some prior government-enforced agreement, was ultimately enforced by the power of the state. To act the same way when people had not consented to be bound by such a decision, and then expect them to follow the dictates of the majority anyway, is just going to annoy people and make them less, not more, likely to do so.

So let’s go back to Justine’s first example,

the first time I saw a block used at Occupy was at one of the first general assemblies in August 2011. There were about a hundred people that day and in the middle of the meeting a proposal was made to join Verizon workers on the picket line as a gesture of solidarity in the hope that they might also support us in return. People loved the idea and there was quite a bit of positive energy until one woman in the crowd, busy tweeting on her phone, casually raised her hand and said, “I block that”. The moderator, quite flabbergasted asked why she blocked and she explained that showing solidarity with workers would alienate the phantasm of our right-wing supporters. Discussion then abruptly ended and the meeting went on. The truth was irrelevant, popular opinion didn’t matter, and solidarity—the most important of all leftist values—was thrown to the wind based on the whims of just one individual. Occupy had to find a new way to do outreach.

Now, I was at this meeting, and I remember the event quite vividly because at the time I was one of the participants who was more than a little bit annoyed by the block. But I also know that this is simply not what happened.

First of all, as I remarked, OWS from the beginning did not have a system where just one person could block a proposal; in the event of a block, we had the option to fall back on a 2/3 majority vote. So if everyone had really loved the proposal, the block could have been simply brushed aside. While many felt the woman in question was being ridiculous (most of us suspected the “national movement” she claimed to represent didn’t really exist), the facilitator, when she asked if anyone felt the same way, was surprised to discover a significant contingent–some, but not all, insurrectionist anarchists–did in fact object to holding the next meeting at a picket line, since they didn’t want to immediately identify the movement with the institutional left. Once it became clear it was not just one crazy person, but a significant chunk of the meeting—probably not quite a third, but close (there weren’t really a hundred people there, incidentally; more like sixty)—she asked if anyone felt strongly that we should move to a vote, and no one insisted. Was this a terrible failure of process? I must admit at the time I found it exasperating. But in retrospect I realize that had we forced a vote, the results might well have been catastrophic. Because at that point we, too were just a bunch of people who’d all showed up in a park. We weren’t a “group” at all. Nobody had committed to anything; certainly, no one had committed to going along with a majority decision.

A block is not a “no” vote. It’s a veto. Or maybe a better way to put it is that giving everyone the power to block is like giving the power to take on the role of the Supreme Court, and stop a piece of legislation that they feel to be unconstitutional, to anyone who has the courage to stand up in front of the entire group and use it. When you block you are saying a proposal violates one of the group’s agreed-on common principles. Of course, in this case we didn’t have any agreed-on common principles. In cases like that, the usual rule of thumb is that you should only block if you feel so strongly about an issue that you’d actually leave the group. In this sense I suspect the initial blocker was indeed being irresponsible (she wouldn’t have really left; and many wouldn’t have mourned her if she had.) However, others felt strongly. Had we held a vote and decided to hold our next meeting at a picket line over their objections, many of them would likely not have shown up. The anti-authoritarian contingent would have been weakened. Had that happened, there was a real chance later decisions, much more important ones, might have gone the other way. I am thinking here in particular of the crucial decision, made some weeks later, not to appoint official marshals and police liaisons for September 17. Judging by the experience of other camps, had that happened, everything might have gone differently and the entire occupation failed. In retrospect, the loss of one early opportunity to create ties with striking unionists now seems a small price to pay for heading off on a road that might have led to that. Especially since we had no trouble establishing strong ties with unions later—precisely because we had succeeded in creating a real occupation in the park.

There are a lot of other issues that one could discuss. Above all, we desperately need to have a conversation about decentralization. Another point of confusion about consensus is the idea that it’s crucial to get approval from everyone about everything, which is again stifling and absurd. Consensus only works if working groups or collectives don’t feel they need to seek constant approval from the larger group, if initiative arises from below, and people only check upwards if there’s a genuinely compelling reason not to go ahead with some initiative without clearing it with everyone else. In a weird way, the very unwieldiness of consensus meetings is helpful here, since it can discourage people from taking trivial issues to a larger group, and thus potentially waste hours of everyone’s time.

But all this will no doubt will be hashed out in the discussions that are going on (another good rule of thumb for consensus meetings: you don’t need to say everything you can think to say if you’re pretty sure someone else will make a lot of the same points anyway). Mainly what I want to say is this:

Our power is in our principles. The power of Occupy has always been that it is an experiment in human freedom. That’s what inspired so many to join us. That’s what terrified the banks and politicians, who scrambled to do everything in their power—infiltration, disruption, propaganda, terror, violence—to be able to tell the word we’d failed, that they had proved a genuinely free society is impossible, that it would necessarily collapse into chaos, squalor, antagonism, violence, and dysfunction. We cannot allow them such a victory. The only way to fight back is to renew our absolute commitment to those principles. We will never compromise on equality and freedom. We will always base our relations to each other on those principles. We will not fall back on top-down structures and forms of decision making premised on the power of coercion. But as long as we do that, and if we really believe in those principles, that necessarily means being as open and flexible as we can about pretty much everything else.

A Scientist’s Misguided Crusade (N.Y.Times)

OP-ED COLUMNIST

By JOE NOCERA

Published: March 4, 2013 

Last Friday, at 3:40 p.m., the State Department released its “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” for the highly contentious Keystone XL pipeline, which Canada hopes to build to move its tar sands oil to refineries in the United States. In effect, the statement said there were no environmental impediments that would prevent President Obama from approving the pipeline.

Two hours and 20 minutes later, I received a blast e-mail containing a statement by James Hansen, the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA — i.e., NASA’s chief climate scientist. “Keystone XL, if the public were to allow our well-oiled government to shepherd it into existence, would be the first step down the wrong road, perpetuating our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, moving to ever dirtier ones,” it began. After claiming that the carbon in the tar sands “exceeds that in all oil burned in human history,” Hansen’s statement concluded: “The public must demand that the government begin serving the public’s interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.”

As a private citizen, Hansen, 71, has the same First Amendment rights as everyone else. He can publicly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline if he so chooses, just as he can be as politically active as he wants to be in the anti-Keystone movement, and even be arrested during protests, something he managed to do recently in front of the White House.

But the blast e-mail didn’t come from James Hansen, private citizen. It specifically identified Hansen as the head of the Goddard Institute, and went on to describe him as someone who “has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed.” All of which made me wonder whether such apocalyptic pronouncements were the sort of statements a government scientist should be making — and whether they were really helping the cause of reversing climate change.

Let’s acknowledge right here that the morphing of scientists into activists is nothing new. Linus Pauling, the great chemist, was a peace activist who pushed hard for a nuclear test ban treaty. Albert Einstein also became a public opponent of nuclear weapons.

It is also important to acknowledge that Hansen has been a crucial figure in developing modern climate science. In 2009, Eileen Claussen, now the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, told The New Yorker that Hansen was a “heroic” scientist who “faced all kinds of pressures politically.” Today, his body of work is one of the foundations upon which much climate science is built.

Yet what people hear from Hansen today is not so much his science but his broad, unscientific views on, say, the evils of oil companies. In 2008, he wrote a paper, the thesis of which was that runaway climate change would occur when carbon in the atmosphere reached 350 parts per million — a point it had already exceeded — unless it were quickly reduced. There are many climate change experts who disagree with this judgment — who believe that the 350 number is arbitrary and even meaningless. Yet an entire movement,350.org, has been built around Hansen’s line in the sand.

Meanwhile, he has a department to run. For a midlevel scientist at the Goddard Institute, what signal is Hansen sending when he takes the day off to get arrested at the White House? Do his colleagues feel unfettered in their own work? There is, in fact, enormous resentment toward Hansen inside NASA, where many officials feel that their solid, analytical work on climate science is being lost in what many of them describe as “the Hansen sideshow.” His activism is not really doing any favors for the science his own subordinates are producing.

Finally, and most important, Hansen has placed all his credibility on one battle: the fight to persuade President Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline. It is the wrong place for him to make a stand. Even in the unlikely event the pipeline is stopped, the tar sands oil will still be extracted and shipped. It might be harder to do without a pipeline, but it is already happening. And in the grand scheme, as I’ve written before, the tar sands oil is not a game changer. The oil we import from Venezuela today is dirtier than that from the tar sands. Not that the anti-pipeline activists seem to care.

What is particularly depressing is that Hansen has some genuinely important ideas, starting with placing a graduated carbon tax on fossil fuels. Such a tax would undoubtedly do far more to reduce carbon emissions and save the planet than stopping the Keystone XL pipeline.

A carbon tax might be worth getting arrested over. But by allowing himself to be distracted by Keystone, Hansen is hurting the very cause he claims to care so much about.

Sismógrafos inaudibles de sociedades cambiantes (Afkar/Ideas)

Driss Ksikes – Afkar / Ideas 34 – /06/2012

La escena artística árabe rebosa de experiencias marginales, erigidas en torno a una idea simple: devolver el arte al corazón de la ciudad, para liberarla de politicastros.

Louis Ferdinand Céline los denomina “los perros nobles”. Se refiere a esas criaturas robustas que tiran de los trineos en el Polo Norte, las únicas capaces de oler a 20 leguas una zanja oculta bajo la superficie glacial aparentemente dura y plana. Por su parte, Edgar Morin habla de “topos” (no en el sentido de agentes secretos), tan enclavados en el propio suelo que notan las sacudidas, apenas perceptibles, sordas, que se producen a lo lejos. Estas metáforas animales subrayan la hipersensibilidad de unos seres que sienten la insidia en la distancia, intuitivamente, sin ninguna ciencia ni modelo de racionalidad reconocible y transmisible a los demás. Es del todo posible, si pensamos en la literatura telúrica del gran poeta marroquí –y sobre todo en sus textos, Agadir y Le déterreur–, hablar de sismógrafos que detectan, mucho antes que los demás, la próxima sacudida social, política, colectiva, que se avecina.

Los antiexpertos

Con ocasión del 2011 árabe, he leído muchos artículos que dan vueltas y más vueltas a la misma letanía: “No vimos venir nada”. Es innegable que los llamados “expertos”, acostumbrados a clasificar la realidad y formatearla en cómodos recuadros de lectura no han hecho precisamente gala de una lucidez excepcional. Los hay que llegaron a errar completamente el tiro, al prever una resistencia donde el derrocamiento de un rais era casi inminente (muy especialmente en el caso de arabistas y otros orientalistas que se expresaron antes de la caída de Hosni Mubarak, negando cualquier similitud entre El Cairo y Túnez). Al basar sus lecturas en los movimientos políticos visibles o en las interacciones geopolíticas, les faltó una perspectiva sociológica y antropológica para ver lo que se tramaba en los intersticios de nuestras sociedades. Hubo artistas y escritores que, libres de los cánones de la ciencia, tuvieron más clarividencia. Sin pretender otorgarles la categoría de adivinos, en este artículo propongo un breve repaso a tres “sismógrafos” prácticamente inaudibles para la multitud, que vislumbraron una nueva pauta o quisieron tomar el pulso a una era agitada.

Un regicidio en escena

Empecemos por Fadhel Yaibi, director y dramaturgo tunecino que, en cuatro décadas, se ha impuesto como uno de los creadores iconoclastas más atinados de la sociedad árabe. En 2010, ya fuera por un arranque de lucidez o por casualidad sincrónica, alumbró, con la complicidad de Yalila Baccar, una obra premonitoria, Amnesia. Un dictador, Yahya Yaich, adulado y alabado por sus cortesanos, se viene abajo y es objeto de humillaciones y torturas en un hospital psiquiátrico, rodeado de sus perros guardianes, transformados en carroñeros. Hasta llegan a rogarle, cuando corre a coger el avión, que dé media vuelta. La obra, representada meses antes de la marcha de Ben Alí, gozó de un gran éxito, sobre todo por su fuerza estética y por revelar, por medio del arte, un hartazgo generalizado. Su extrema afabilidad impide al sismógrafo tunecino, Yaibi, atribuirse ningún rol que no sea el de artista, entremetido, escéptico, humanista, sensible a lo que se cuece en su entorno, deseoso de mostrar otra faceta de los acontecimientos. La de una realidad política insoportable sublimada por un regicidio en escena es necesariamente imperceptible para los estrategas e inaudible para las instituciones, incluso académicas, que subestiman la inteligencia emocional. No obstante, nos remite a algo que cada vez más pensadores, como Bruno Latour, consideran urgente: la reconexión del arte con la política, no como su valedor, sino para tener presente que el arte es en esencia un acto político, bello por su gratuidad, su altruismo y, sobre todo, por su resonancia social, más allá de los muros convencionales del establishment.

Contra el patriotismo de los ‘secretas’

En Egipto se ha impuesto otra figura, a través de textos y otros medios, en la vida literaria cairota, hasta el punto de considerarla uno de los amuletos de la revuelta de la plaza Tahrir. Me refiero al novelista Alaa el Aswany. Tras su superventas, El edificio Yacobián, pasando por Chicago, el dentista y escritor tardío destaca por su aversión al patriotismo de “los secretas” y al islamismo literal que encorsetan a la sociedad egipcia. En 2010, toma carrerilla y publica una serie de relatos cortos de título provocador, ¿Por qué los egipcios no se rebelan? Al explicar lo poco que tardó en desprenderse del dogmatismo marxista sin enterrar a Marx, deconstruye el molde identitario que mantiene a un pueblo sometido a su dictador. Cliente habitual de El Cairo, un café literario muy querido, El Aswany pudo, en los dos años previos a la revolución, afincarse como humanista contestatario, como autor escuchado y ampliamente citado. En Tahrir, tuvo el papel del sabio a quien acuden jóvenes desorientados. Inspirado en las cinco fases de caída del dictador predichas por Gabriel García Márquez (negación, patriotismo de recuperación, concesiones a medias, confesión tipo “os he entendido” y huida), fue capaz de convencerlos de que, aunque pretendiera resistir, Mubarak acabaría escapando. Está claro que la conciencia de este hombre honesto tuvo más peso que centenares de informes de desarrollo humano que, aun tocando a muerto, no calaban en los actores. Ahí reside también la fuerza de un sismógrafo, en su proximidad al terreno, tan alejado de los burócratas.

Zonas Temporalmente Autónomas

El rasgo que comparten estas experiencias es, sin duda, la subversión. Como en tiempos de la generación beat en Estados Unidos, donde nacieron las Zonas Temporalmente Autónomas, hace años que la escena artística árabe rebosa de experiencias, marginales, erigidas en torno a una idea simple: devolver el arte al corazón de la ciudad, para liberarla de politicastros. El sublime escritor alemán Friedrich Hölderlin lo llamaba “hacer el mundo poéticamente habitable”. Tras esta utopía, hay dos experiencias dignas de mención. La primera, alumbrada en Túnez en 2008, se llama Dream city. No se trata de arte callejero, sino de la calle puesta a disposición de los artistas. Por espacio de una semana, la ciudadanía se enfrenta a lo imprevisible, lo improbable, para vivir de otra manera en sus espacios cerrados. Fue una de esas raras ocasiones, inesperadas en la época de Ben Ali, en que el pueblo se reunía y dialogaba libremente.

La segunda experiencia, DABATEATR ciudadano, vio la luz en Rabat en 2009. En ella, el teatro se retoma como lugar público de controversia. Se revisitan las distintas artes, para devolver al público a la raíz del cuestionamiento ciudadano. Y la dramaturgia revisa la actualidad para sacar a relucir la universalidad que anida en las noticias. Antes de su nacimiento, los activistas del Movimiento 20 de Febrero se encontraban de algún modo en este espacio, discutiendo libremente entre blogueros. No hizo falta gritar mucho para que surgiera la ola de indignación.

Estas experiencias insólitas, singulares, pero escasas, no emergen ni en la universidad ni en lugares convencionales. Son fruto de las tentativas y de la experimentación de artistas que siguen conectados a la realidad sin perder de vista la utopía.

Big military guy more scared of climate change than enemy guns (Grist)

By Susie Cagle

11 Mar 2013 6:13 PM

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, chief of U.S. Pacific Command, doesn’t look like your usual proponent of climate action. Spencer Ackerman writes at Wired that Locklear “is no smelly hippie,” but the guy does believe there will be terrible security threats on a warming planet, which might make him a smelly hippie in the eyes of many American military boosters.

13-03-11AdmSamuelLocklear
Commander U.S. 7th Fleet

Everyone wants him to be worried about North Korean nukes and Chinese missiles, but in an interview with The Boston Globe, Locklear said that societal upheaval due to climate change “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen … that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”

Locklear said his Hawaii-based headquarters — which is … responsible for operations from California to India — is working with Asian nations to stockpile supplies in strategic locations and planning a major exercise for May with nearly two dozen countries to practice the “what-ifs.”

Locklear isn’t alone in his climate fears. A recent article by Julia Whitty takes an in-depth look at what the military is doing to deal with climate change. A 2008 report by U.S. intelligence agencieswarned about national security challenges posed by global warming, as have later reports from the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. New Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel understands the threat, too. People may be surprised sometimes, Adm. Locklear, but they really shouldn’t be!

Will not-a-dirty-hippie Locklear’s words help to further mainstream the idea that climate change is a serious security problem? And what all has the good admiral got planned for this emergency sea-rising drill in May?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for Twitter.

The Crisis in Climate-Change Coverage (Truth Out)

Sunday, 03 March 2013 07:23

By Josh StearnsFree Press

Climate activist Bill McKibben speaking at the San Francisco Bay Area's Moving Planet rally. (Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/350org/6186391697/sizes/m/in/photostream/" target="_blank"> 350.org / flickr</a>)Climate activist Bill McKibben speaking at the San Francisco Bay Area’s Moving Planet rally. (Photo: 350.org / flickr)

Fifty-thousand people recently marched in Washington, D.C., calling on President Obama to fulfill his recent promises to take immediate and meaningful action to address the looming climate crisis.

And just days before, a group of environmental journalists, scientists and activists came together in a Web chat to discuss the state of climate-change coverage in America.

The event, organized by Free Press andOrion Magazine, featured Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones; Bill McKibben, author and 350.org founder; Wen Stephenson, writer and climate activist; M. Sanjayan, CBS News contributor and Nature Conservancy scientist; Thomas Lovejoy, chief biologist at the Heinz Center and creator of the PBS show Nature; and reporter Susie Cagle of Grist.org.

Here’s what they had to say. (You can listen to the entire discussion here.)

Structure Versus Culture

A complex mix of structural and cultural factors has affected climate-change coverage in the U.S. The forces that shape U.S. media have not been kind to environmental reporting. Years of media consolidation have led to dramatic layoffs in commercial newsrooms, and environment and science desks are often the first to go. In addition, M. Sanjayan noted that media consolidation has had an echo-chamber effect: All climate stories sound the same and they lack depth, specificity and connection to place.

The U.S. also under-funds noncommercial alternatives, like public media, where climate-change reporting should thrive. The best environmental writing is happening at the margins of our media at longtime nonprofit magazines and new online startups. In contrast, mainstream outlets have tended to legitimize climate-change deniers in the face of widespread scientific consensus about the effects of global warming.

Wen Stephenson argued that journalists have been reticent to raise the alarm about climate change. “The mainstream media has failed to cover the climate crisis as a crisis,” he said.

Empathy Versus Objectivity

A repeated theme of the conversation was the line between advocacy and journalism. There was disagreement about where the line should fall. Kate Sheppard said she was disappointed that coverage of the BP oil spill didn’t inspire more sustained activism on climate change, but noted that it wasn’t her job to organize, only to inform.

Stephenson, on the other hand, argued that when it comes to climate change, journalists need to find their moral bearings. Acknowledging the limits of objectivity, Stephenson discussed the value of empathy and the need to understand the true human and natural stakes of this debate.

Telling a More Human Story

The panelists agreed that climate-change reporting needs to get personal. Journalists need to better connect climate change to people’s lives, their homes, their families and their everyday concerns. Susie Cagle said that when she reports on climate change she does so through the lens of cities, rivers and food.

Bill McKibben pointed to the way 350.org activists have shifted the narrative — literally putting their bodies on the line by holding protests and other events around the globe. McKibben also noted the importance of people making their own media — with photos, videos and blogs —especially when there are fewer and fewer local media outlets willing to take on the work.

Sanjayan said we need a better way to frame climate-change reporting. The Keystone XL Pipeline story has gained so much traction in part because there is a clear bad guy, a clear target and clear actions people can take. Those elements aren’t always present, so journalists need to find different ways to reach their audiences. We need to be aware of who is telling the story. Sanjayan noted that all too often, climate-change reporting is too U.S.-centric and doesn’t tell the full global story.

Quality and Quantity Versus Reach and Impact

Thirty-two years ago television offered nothing of substance about the natural world or the threats it faced. This was the inspiration for Thomas Lovejoy, the scientist who coined the term “biodiversity,” to pitch a new kind of show to New York public TV station WNET.

Since PBS’ Nature first aired, a lot has changed. Now, Sheppard said, there is a ton of great environmental reporting, but it’s not always easy to find and it’s not always seen by the people who need to see it. One way to foster better coverage, Sheppard said, is to support what’s already out there by sharing it, funding it and subscribing to those doing it.

Panelists acknowledged that many publications — like this Web chat itself — end up speaking to the choir when we desperately need to get beyond it. For Sheppard, one way of doing that is through journalism collaborations that help get content out to new audiences and on different platforms.

For Cagle, the platform piece is key. She talked about the need to get beyond the “wall of text” and tell more immersive stories about climate. For her, the use of audio and illustrations helps bring readers into the story. “Art can make stories more accessible and personal,” said Cagle.

Sanjayan discussed the potential for cable TV to be a powerful messenger. For example, he is working on an in-depth series for Showtime on climate change.

Next Steps

The discussion offered few cut-and-dry prescriptions for concrete changes that need to happen to embolden and expand climate coverage. Panelists agreed that we need a journalism of solutions, not just a journalism of problems. For newsrooms and journalists, the first step is to begin to understand the scope and scale of this crisis, and write as if your life depended on it.

Indígenas ameaçam guerra para barrar hidrelétricas no rio Tapajós (Valor Econômico)

JC e-mail 4671, de 25 de Fevereiro de 2013.

Um grupo de líderes de aldeias localizadas no Pará e no norte do Mato Grosso esteve em Brasília para protestar contra ações de empresas na região

Não houve acordo. O governo teve uma pequena amostra, na semana passada, da resistência que enfrentará para levar adiante seu projeto de construção de hidrelétricas ao longo do rio Tapajós, uma região isolada da Amazônia onde vivem hoje cerca de 8 mil índios da etnia munduruku. Um grupo de líderes de aldeias localizadas no Pará e no norte do Mato Grosso, Estados que são cortados pelo rio, esteve em Brasília para protestar contra ações de empresas na região, que realizam levantamento de informações para preparar o licenciamento ambiental das usinas.

Os índios tiveram uma reunião com o ministro de Minas e Energia (MME), Edison Lobão. Na mesa, os projetos da hidrelétricas de São Luiz do Tapajós e de Jatobá, dois dos maiores projetos de geração previstos pelo governo. Lobão foi firme. Disse aos índios que o governo não vai abrir mãos das duas usinas e que eles precisam entender isso. Valter Cardeal, diretor da Eletrobras que também participou da discussão, tentou convencer os índios de que o negócio é viável e de que eles serão devidamente compensados pelos impactos. Os índios deixaram a sala.

Para o cacique Arnaldo Koba Munduruku, que lidera todos os povos indígenas da região do Tapajós, o resultado do encontro foi negativo. “Nosso povo não quer indenização, nem quer o dinheiro de usina. Nosso povo quer o rio como ele é”, disse Koba ao Valor. “Não vamos permitir que usinas ou até mesmo que estudos sejam feitos. Vamos unir nossa gente e vamos para o enfrentamento. O Tapajós não vai sofrer como sofre hoje o rio Xingu”, afirmou o líder indígena, referindo-se às complicações indígenas que envolvem o licenciamento e a construção da hidrelétrica de Belo Monte, em Altamira (PA).

Numa carta que foi entregue nas mãos do secretário-geral da Presidência, ministro Gilberto Carvalho, os índios pediram “que o governo brasileiro respeite a decisão do povo munduruku e desista de construir essas hidrelétricas”. No mesmo documento, os índios cobram agilidade na investigação da morte de Adenilson Kirixi Munduruku, que foi assassinado com três tiros em novembro do ano passado, na região do Teles Pires, rio localizado no norte do Mato Grosso e que forma o Tapajós, em sua confluência com o rio Juruena.

Os índios se negaram a assinar um documento apresentado pela Presidência, que previa compromissos a serem assumidos pelo governo, por entenderem que se tratava de uma consulta prévia já atrelada ao licenciamento das usinas do Tapajós. “Viemos até aqui para cobrar a punição pelo assassinato de nosso irmão, mas vimos que a intenção do governo era outra. Ele queria mesmo era tratar das usinas, mas não permitimos isso”, disse o líder indígena Waldelirio Manhuary Munduruku. “Não vamos nos ajoelhar. Não haverá usinas, nem estudos de usinas. Iremos até o fim nessa guerra.”

No balanço do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC) divulgado na semana passada, o cronograma de São Luiz do Tapajós e de Jatobá estabelece o mês de setembro para conclusão dos estudos ambientais das usinas. O levantamento de informações na região começou a ser feito pela Eletrobras há pelo menos um ano e meio. Analistas ambientais e técnicos da estatal têm enfrentado resistências na região para colher informações dos moradores.

O grupo de empresas que o governo reuniu em agosto do ano passado para participar da elaboração dos estudos dá uma ideia do interesse energético que a União tem no Tapajós. Com a Eletrobras estão Cemig Geração e Transmissão, Copel Geração e Transmissão, GDF Suez Energy Latin America Participações, Endesa do Brasil e Neoenergia Investimentos.

Com as usinas de São Luiz e Jatobá, o governo quer adicionar 8.471 megawatts de potência à sua matriz energética. O custo ambiental disso seria a inundação de 1.368 quilômetros quadrados de floresta virgem, duas vezes e meia a inundação que será causada pela hidrelétrica de Belo Monte. O governo diz que é pouco e que, se forem implementadas todas as usinas previstas para a Amazônia, menos de 1% da floresta ficaria embaixo d”água.

(André Borges – Valor Econômico)

The Politics of Disimagination and the Pathologies of Power (Truth Out)

Wednesday, 27 February 2013 00:00

By Henry A GirouxTruthout | News Analysis

Eye reflecitng TV(Photo: tryingmyhardest). You write in order to change the world knowing perfectly well that you probably can’t, but also knowing that [writing] is indispensable to the world. The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” – James Baldwin

The Violence of Neoliberalism

We live in a time of deep foreboding, one that haunts any discourse about justice, democracy and the future. Not only have the points of reference that provided a sense of certainty and collective hope in the past largely evaporated, but the only referents available are increasingly supplied by a hyper-market-driven society, megacorporations and a corrupt financial service industry. The commanding economic and cultural institutions of American society have taken on what David Theo Goldberg calls a “militarizing social logic.”[1] Market discipline now regulates all aspects of social life, and the regressive economic rationality that drives it sacrifices the public good, public values and social responsibility to a tawdry consumerist dream while simultaneously creating a throwaway society of goods, resources and individuals now considered disposable.[2] This militarizing logic is also creeping into public schools and colleges with the former increasingly resembling the culture of prison and the latter opening their classrooms to the national intelligence agencies.[3] In one glaring instance of universities endorsing the basic institutions of the punishing state, Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, concluded a deal to rename its football stadium after the GEO Group, a private prison corporation “whose record is marred by human rights abuses, by lawsuits, by unnecessary deaths of people in their custody and a whole series of incidents.” [3A] Armed guards are now joined by armed knowledge.  Corruption, commodification and repressive state apparatuses have become the central features of a predatory society in which it is presumed irrationally “that market should dominate and determine all choices and outcomes to the occlusion of any other considerations.”[4]

The political, economic, and social consequences have done more than destroy any viable vision of a good society. They undermine the modern public’s capacity to think critically, celebrate a narcissistic hyperindividualism that borders on the pathological, destroy social protections and promote a massive shift towards a punitive state that criminalizes the behavior of those bearing the hardships imposed by a survival-of-the-fittest society that takes delight in the suffering of others. How else to account for a criminal justice stacked overwhelmingly against poor minorities, a prison system in which “prisoners can be held in solitary confinement for years in small, windowless cells in which they are kept for twenty-three hours of every day,”[5] or a police state that puts handcuffs on a 5-year old and puts him in jail because he violated a dress code by wearing sneakers that were the wrong color.[6] Why does the American public put up with a society in which “the top 1 percent of households owned 35.6 percent of net wealth (net worth) and a whopping 42.4 percent of net financial assets” in 2009, while many young people today represent the “new face of a national homeless population?”[7] American society is awash in a culture of civic illiteracy, cruelty and corruption. For example, major banks such as Barclays and HSBC swindle billions from clients and increase their profit margins by laundering money for terrorist organizations, and no one goes to jail. At the same time, we have the return of debtor prisons for the poor who cannot pay something as trivial as a parking fine. President Obama arbitrarily decides that he can ignore due process and kill American citizens through drone strikes and the American public barely blinks. Civic life collapses into a war zone and yet the dominant media is upset only because it was not invited to witness the golf match between Obama and Tiger Woods.

The celebration of violence in both virtual culture and real life now feed each other. The spectacle of carnage celebrated in movies such as A Good Day to Die Hard is now matched by the deadly violence now playing out in cities such as Chicago and New Orleans. Young people are particularly vulnerable to such violence, with 561 children age 12 and under killed by firearms between 2006 and 2010.[8] Corporate power, along with its shameless lobbyists and intellectual pundits, unabashedly argue for more guns in order to feed the bottom line, even as the senseless carnage continues tragically in places like Newtown, Connecticut, Tustin, California, and other American cities. In the meantime, the mainstream media treats the insane rambling of National Rifle Association’s (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as a legitimate point of view among many voices. This is the same guy who, after the killing of 20 young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, claimed the only way to stop more tragedies was to flood the market with more guns and provide schools with more armed guards. The American public was largely silent on the issue in spite of the fact that an increase of police in schools does nothing to prevent such massacres but does increase the number of children, particularly poor black youth, who are pulled out of class, booked and arrested for trivial behavioral infractions.

At the same time, America’s obsession with violence is reinforced by a market society that is Darwinian in its pursuit of profit and personal gain at almost any cost. Within this scenario, a social and economic order has emerged that combines the attributes and values of films such as the classics Mad Max and American Psycho. Material deprivation, galloping inequality, the weakening of public supports, the elimination of viable jobs, the mindless embrace of rabid competition and consumption, and the willful destruction of the environment speak to a society in which militarized violence finds its counterpart, if not legitimating credo, in a set of atomizing and selfish values that disdain shared social bonds and any notion of the public good. In this case, American society now mimics a market-driven culture that celebrates a narcissistic hyperindividualism that radiates with a new sociopathic lack of interest in others and a strong tendency towards violence and criminal behavior. As John le Carré once stated, “America has entered into one of its periods of historical madness.”[9] While le Carré wrote this acerbic attack on American politics in 2003, I think it is fair to say that things have gotten worse, and that the United States is further plunging into madness because of a deadening form of historical and social amnesia that has taken over the country, further reproducing a mass flight from memory and social responsibility. The politics of disimagination includes, in this instance, what Mumia Abu-Jamal labeled “mentacide,” a form of historical amnesia “inflicted on Black youth by the system’s systematic campaign to eradicate and deny them their people’s revolutionary history.”[10]

America’s Plunge Into Militarized Madness

How does one account for the lack of public outcry over millions of Americans losing their homes because of corrupt banking practices and millions more becoming unemployed because of the lack of an adequate jobs program in the United States, while at the same time stories abound of colossal greed and corruption on Wall Street? [11] For example, in 2009 alone, hedge fund manager David Tepper made approximately 4 billion dollars.[12] As Michael Yates points out: “This income, spent at a rate of $10,000 a day and exclusive of any interest, would last him and his heirs 1,096 years! If we were to suppose that Mr. Tepper worked 2,000 hours in 2009 (fifty weeks at forty hours per week), he took in $2,000,000 per hour and $30,000 a minute.”[13] This juxtaposition of robber-baron power and greed is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media in conjunction with the deep suffering and misery now experienced by millions of families, workers, children, jobless public servants and young people. This is especially true of a generation of youth who have become the new precariat[14] – a zero generation relegated to zones of social and economic abandonment and marked by zero jobs, zero future, zero hope and what Zygmunt Bauman has defined as a societal condition which is more “liquid,”less defined, punitive, and, in the end, more death dealing.[15]

Narcissism and unchecked greed have morphed into more than a psychological category that points to a character flaw among a marginal few. Such registers are now symptomatic of a market-driven society in which extremes of violence, militarization, cruelty and inequality are hardly noticed and have become normalized. Avarice and narcissism are not new. What is new is the unprecedented social sanction of the ethos of greed that has emerged since the 1980s.[16] What is also new is that military force and values have become a source of pride rather than alarm in American society. Not only has the war on terror violated a host of civil liberties, it has further sanctioned a military that has assumed a central role in American society, influencing everything from markets and education to popular culture and fashion. President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office warning about the rise of the military-industrial complex, with its pernicious alignment of the defense industry, the military and political power.[17] What he underestimated was the transition from a militarized economy to a militarized society in which the culture itself was shaped by military power, values and interests. What has become clear in contemporary America is that the organization of civil society for the production of violence is about more than producing militarized technologies and weapons; it is also about producing militarized subjects and a permanent war economy. As Aaron B. O’Connell points outs:

Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland”and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas.[18]

The imaginary of war and violence informs every aspect of American society and extends from the celebration of a warrior culture in mainstream media to the use of universities to educate students in the logic of the national security state. Military deployments now protect “free trade” arrangements, provide job programs and drain revenue from public coffers. For instance, Lockheed Martin stands to gain billions of dollars in profits as Washington prepares to buy 2,443 F-35 fighter planes at a cost of $90 million each from the company. The overall cost of the project for a plane that has been called a “one trillion dollar boondoggle” is expected to cost more “than Australia’s entire GDP ($924 billion).”[19] Yet, the American government has no qualms about cutting food programs for the poor, early childhood programs for low-income students and food stamps for those who exist below the poverty line. Such misplaced priorities represent more than a military-industrial complex that is out of control. They also suggest the plunge of American society into the dark abyss of a state that is increasingly punitive, organized around the production of violence and unethical in its policies, priorities and values.

John Hinkson argues that such institutionalized violence is far from a short-lived and aberrant historical moment. In fact, he rightfully asserts that: “we have a new world economy, one crucially that lacks all substantial points of reference and is by implication nihilistic. The point is that this is not a temporary situation because of the imperatives, say, of war: it is a structural break with the past.”[20] Evidence of such a shift is obvious in the massive transfer upward in wealth and income that have not only resulted in the concentration of power in relatively few hands, but have promoted both unprecedented degrees of human suffering and hardship along with what can be called a politics of disimagination.

The Rise of the “Disimagination Machine”

Borrowing from Georges Didi-Huberman’s use of the term, “disimagination machine,” I argue that the politics of disimagination refers to images, and I would argue institutions, discourses, and other modes of representation, that undermine the capacity of individuals to bear witness to a different and critical sense of remembering, agency, ethics and collective resistance.[21] The “disimagination machine” is both a set of cultural apparatuses extending from schools and mainstream media to the new sites of screen culture, and a public pedagogy that functions primarily to undermine the ability of individuals to think critically, imagine the unimaginable, and engage in thoughtful and critical dialogue: put simply, to become critically informed citizens of the world.

Examples of the “disimagination machine” abound. A few will suffice. For instance, the Texas State Board of Education and other conservative boards of education throughout the United States are rewriting American textbooks to promote and impose on America’s public school students what Katherine Stewart calls “a Christian nationalist version of US history” in which Jesus is implored to “invade” public schools.[22] In this version of history, the term “slavery” is removed from textbooks and replaced with “Atlantic triangular trade,” the earth is 6,000 years old, and the Enlightenment is the enemy of education. Historical figures such as Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, considered to have suspect religious views, “are ruthlessly demoted or purged altogether from the study program.”[23] Currently, 46 percent of the American population believes in the creationist view of evolution and increasingly rejects scientific evidence, research and rationality as either ‘academic’ or irreligious.[24]

The rise of the Tea Party and the renewal of the culture wars have resulted in a Republican Party which is now considered the party of anti-science. Similarly, right-wing politicians, media, talk show hosts and other conservative pundits loudly and widely spread the message that a culture of questioning is antithetical to the American way of life. Moreover, this message is also promoted by conservative groups such as The American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC) which has “hit the ground running in 2013, pushing ‘model bills’ mandating the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems.”[25] The climate-change-denial machine is also promoted by powerful conservative groups such as the Heartland Institute. Ignorance is never too far from repression, as was recently demonstrated in Arizona, where State Rep. Bob Thorpe, a Republican freshman Tea Party member, introduced a new bill requiring students to take a loyalty oath in order to receive a graduation diploma.[26]

The “disimagination machine” is more powerful than ever as conservative think tanks provide ample funds for training and promoting anti-public pseudo-intellectuals and religious fundamentalists while simultaneously offering policy statements and talking points to conservative media such as FOX News, Christian news networks, right-wing talk radio, and partisan social media and blogs. This ever growing information/illiteracy bubble has become a powerful force of public pedagogy in the larger culture and is responsible for not only the war on science, reason and critical thought, but also the war on women’s reproductive rights, poor minority youth, immigrants, public schooling, and any other marginalized group or institution that challenges the anti-intellectual, anti-democratic worldviews of the new extremists and the narrative supporting Christian nationalism. Liberal Democrats, of course, contribute to this “disimagination machine” through educational policies that substitute critical thinking and critical pedagogy for paralyzing pedagogies of memorization and rote learning tied to high-stakes testing in the service of creating a neoliberal, dumbed-down workforce.

As John Atcheson has pointed out, we are “witnessing an epochal shift in our socio-political world. We are de-evolving, hurtling headlong into a past that was defined by serfs and lords; by necromancy and superstition; by policies based on fiat, not facts.”[27] We are also plunging into a dark world of anti-intellectualism, civic illiteracy and a formative culture supportive of an authoritarian state. The embrace of ignorance is at the center of political life today, and a reactionary form of public pedagogy has become the most powerful element of the politics of authoritarianism. Civic illiteracy is the modus operandi for creating depoliticized subjects who believe that consumerism is the only obligation of citizenship, who privilege opinions over reasoned arguments, and who are led to believe that ignorance is a virtue rather than a political and civic liability. In any educated democracy, much of the debate that occupies political life today, extending from creationism and climate change denial to “birther” arguments, would be speedily dismissed as magical thinking, superstition and an obvious form of ignorance. Mark Slouka is right in arguing that, “Ignorance gives us a sense of community; it confers citizenship; our representatives either share it or bow down to it or risk our wrath…. Communicate intelligently in America and you’re immediately suspect.”[28] The politics and machinery of disimagination and its production of ever-deepening ignorance dominates American society because it produces, to a large degree, uninformed customers, hapless clients, depoliticized subjects and illiterate citizens incapable of holding corporate and political power accountable. At stake here is more than the dangerous concentration of economic, political and cultural power in the hands of the ultrarich, megacorporations and elite financial services industries. Also at issue is the widespread perversion of the social, critical education, the public good, and democracy itself.

Toward a Radical Imagination

Against the politics of disimagination, progressives, workers, educators, young people and others need to develop a a new language of radical reform and create new public spheres that provide the pedagogical conditions for critical thought, dialogue and thoughtful deliberation. At stake here is a notion of pedagogy that both informs the mind and creates the conditions for modes of agency that are critical, informed, engaged and socially responsible. The radical imagination can be nurtured around the merging of critique and hope, the capacity to connect private troubles with broader social considerations, and the production of alternative formative cultures that provide the precondition for political engagement and for energizing democratic movements for social change – movements willing to think beyond isolated struggles and the limits of a savage global capitalism. Stanley Aronowitz and Peter Bratsis point to such a project in their manifesto on the radical imagination. They write:

This Manifesto looks forward to the creation of a new political Left formation that can overcome fragmentation, and provide a solid basis for many-side interventions in the current economic, political and social crises that afflict people in all walks of life. The Left must once again offer to young people, people of color, women, workers, activists, intellectuals and newly-arrived immigrants places to learn how the capitalist system works in all of its forms of exploitation whether personal, political, or economic. We need to reconstruct a platform to oppose Capital. It must ask in this moment of US global hegemony what are the alternatives to its cruel power over our lives, and those of large portions of the world’s peoples. And the Left formation is needed to offer proposals on how to rebuild a militant, democratic labor movement, strengthen and transform the social movements; and, more generally, provide the opportunity to obtain a broad education that is denied to them by official institutions. We need a political formation dedicated to the proposition that radical theory and practice are inextricably linked, that knowledge without action is impotent, but action without knowledge is blind.[29]

Matters of justice, equality, and political participation are foundational to any functioning democracy, but it is important to recognize that they have to be rooted in a vibrant formative culture in which democracy is understood not just as a political and economic structure but also as a civic force enabling justice, equality and freedom to flourish. While the institutions and practices of a civil society and an aspiring democracy are essential in this project, what must also be present are the principles and modes of civic education and critical engagement that support the very foundations of democratic culture. Central to such a project is the development of a new radical imagination both through the pedagogies and projects of public intellectuals in the academy and through work that can be done in other educational sites, such as the new media. Utilizing the Internet, social media, and other elements of the digital and screen culture, public intellectuals, cultural workers, young people and others can address larger audiences and present the task of challenging diverse forms of oppression, exploitation and exclusion as part of a broader effort to create a radical democracy.

There is a need to invent modes of pedagogy that release the imagination, connect learning to social change and create social relations in which people assume responsibility for each other. Such a pedagogy is not about methods or prepping students to learn how to take tests. Nor is such an education about imposing harsh disciplinary behaviors in the service of a pedagogy of oppression. On the contrary, it is about a moral and political practice capable of enabling students and others to become more knowledgeable while creating the conditions for generating a new vision of the future in which people can recognize themselves, a vision that connects with and speaks to the desires, dreams and hopes of those who are willing to fight for a radical democracy. Americans need to develop a new understanding of civic literacy, education and engagement, one capable of developing a new conversation and a new political project about democracy, inequality, and the redistribution of wealth and power, and how such a discourse can offer the conditions for democratically inspired visions, modes of governance and policymaking. Americans need to embrace and develop modes of civic literacy, critical education and democratic social movements that view the public good as a utopian imaginary, one that harbors a trace and vision of what it means to defend old and new public spheres that offer spaces where dissent can be produced, public values asserted, dialogue made meaningful and critical thought embraced as a noble ideal.

Elements of such a utopian imaginary can be found in James Baldwin’s “Open Letter to My Sister, Angela Davis,” in which he points out that “we live in an age in which silence is not only criminal but suicidal.”[30] The utopian imaginary is also on full display in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” where King states under the weight and harshness of incarceration that an “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere … [and asks whether we will] be extremists for the preservation of injustice – or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”[31] According to King, “we must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy.”[32] We hear it in the words of former Harvard University President James B. Conant, who makes an impassioned call for “the need for the American radical – the missing political link between the past and future of this great democratic land.” [33] We hear it in the voices of young people all across the United States – the new American radicals – who are fighting for a society in which justice matters, social protections are guaranteed, equality is insured, and education becomes a right and not an entitlement. The radical imagination waits to be unleashed through social movements in which injustice is put on the run and civic literacy, economic justice, and collective struggle once again become the precondition for agency, hope and the struggle over democracy.

Endnotes

1.
David Theo Goldberg, “Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic,”in Enrique Jezik: Obstruct, destroy, conceal, ed. Cuauhtémoc Medina (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2011), 183-198.

2.
See, for example, Colin Leys, Market Driven Politics (London: Verso, 2001); Randy Martin, Financialization of Daily Life (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002); Pierre Bourdieu, Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2. Trans. Loic Wacquant (New York: The New Press, 2003); Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston, Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader (London: Pluto Press, 2005); Henry A. Giroux, Against the Terror of Neoliberalism (Boulder: Paradigm, 2008); David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Manfred B. Steger and Ravi K. Roy, Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Gerad Dumenil and Dominique Levy, The Crisis of Neoliberalism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011). Henry A. Giroux, Twilight of the Social (Boulder: Paradigm, 2013); Stuart Hall, “The March of the Neoliberals,” The Guardian, (September 12, 2011). online at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/12/march-of-the-neoliberals

3.
See most recently  Kelly V. Vlahos, “Boots on Campus,” Anti War.com (February 26, 2013). On line: http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2013/02/25/boots-on-campus/ and David H. Price, Weaponizing Anthropology (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2011).

3A. Greg Bishop, “A Company that Runs Prisons Will Have its Name on a Stadium,”New York Times (February 19, 2013). Online:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/sports/ncaafootball/a-company-that-runs-prisons-will-have-its-name-on-a-stadium.html?_r=0

4.
Ibid. Goldberg, pp. 197-198.

5.
Jonathan Schell, “Cruel America”, The Nation, (September 28, 2011) online:http://www.thenation.com/article/163690/cruel-america

6.
Suzi Parker, “Cops Nab 5-Year-Old for Wearing Wrong Color Shoes to School,” Take Part, (January 18, 2013). Online:http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/18/cops-nab-five-year-old-wearing-wrong-color-shoes-school

7.
Susan Saulny, “After Recession, More Young Adults Are Living on Street,” The New York Times, (December 18, 2012). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/since-recession-more-young-americans-are-homeless.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

8.
Suzanne Gamboa and Monika Mathur, “Guns Kill Young Children Daily In The U.S.,” Huffington Post (December 24, 2012). Online:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/24/guns-children_n_2359661.html

9.
John le Carre, “The United States of America Has Gone Mad,” CommonDreams (January 15, 2003). Online: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-01.htm

10.
Eric Mann Interviews Mumbia Abu Jamal, “Mumia Abu Jamal: On his biggest political influences and the political ‘mentacide’ of today’s youth.” Voices from the Frontlines Radio (April 9, 2012).

11.
See, for example, Charles Ferguson, Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America (New York: Random House, 2012).

12.
Michael Yates, “The Great Inequality,” Monthly Review, (March 1, 2012).

13.
Ibid.

14.
Guy Standing, The New Precariat: The New Dangerous Class (New York: Bloomsbury, 2011).

15.
Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).

16.
This issue is taken up brilliantly in Irving Howe, “Reaganism: The Spirit of the Times,” Selected Writings 1950-1990 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990), pp. 410-423.

17.
I take up this issue in detail in Henry A. Giroux, The University in Chains: Challenging the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex (Boulder: Paradigm, 2007).

18.
Aaron B. O’Connell, “The Permanent Militarization of America,” The New York Times, (November 4, 2012). Online:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

19.
Dominic Tierney, “The F-35: A Weapon that Costs More Than Australia,” The Atlantic (February 13, 2013). Online:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

20.
John Hinkson, “The GFC Has Just Begun,”Arena Magazine 122 (March 2013), p. 51.

21.
Georges Didi-Huberman, Images in Spite of All: Four Photographs from Auschwitz, trans. Shane B. Lillis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), pp. 1-2.

22.
Katherine Stewart, “Is Texas Waging War on History?”AlterNet (May 21, 2012). Online: http://www.alternet.org/story/155515/is_texas_waging_war_on_history

23.
Ibid.

24.
See, for instance, Chris Mooney, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science – and Reality (New York: Wiley, 2012).

25.
Steve Horn, “Three States Pushing ALEC Bill to Require Teachng Climate Change Denial in Schools,”Desmogblog.com (January 31, 2013). Online:www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/31/three-states-pushing-alec-bill-climate-change-denial-schools

26.
Igor Volsky, “Arizona Bill to Force Students to Take a Loyalty Oath,” AlterNet (January 26, 2013).

27.
John Atcheson, “Dark ages Redux: American Politics and the End of the Enlightenment,” CommonDreams (June 18, 2012). Online:https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/18-2

28.
Mark Slouka, “A Quibble,” Harper’s Magazine (February 2009).

29.
Manifesto, Left Turn: An Open Letter to U.S. Radicals, (N.Y.: The Fifteenth Street Manifesto Group, March 2008), pp. 4-5.

30.
James Baldwin, “An Open Letter to My Sister, Miss Angela Davis,” The New York Review of Books, (January 7, 1971). Online: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1971/jan/07/an-open-letter-to-my-sister-miss-angela-davis/?pagination=false

31.
Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” (1963), in James M. Washington, The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), pp.290, 298.

32.
Ibid, 296.

33.
James B. Conant, “Wanted: American Radicals”, The Atlantic, May 1943.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

A tinta vermelha: discurso de Slavoj Žižek aos manifestantes do movimento Occupy Wall Street (Boitempo)

http://www.comunistas.spruz.com/pt/A-tinta-vermelha-discurso-de-Slavoj-Zizek-aos-manifestantes-do-Occupy-Wall-Street/blog.htm

Oct 9, 2011

Não se apaixonem por si mesmos, nem pelo momento agradável que estamos tendo aqui. Carnavais custam muito pouco – o verdadeiro teste de seu valor é o que permanece no dia seguinte, ou a maneira como nossa vida normal e cotidiana será modificada. Apaixone-se pelo trabalho duro e paciente – somos o início, não o fim. Nossa mensagem básica é: o tabu já foi rompido, não vivemos no melhor mundo possível, temos a permissão e a obrigação de pensar em alternativas. Há um longo caminho pela frente, e em pouco tempo teremos de enfrentar questões realmente difíceis – questões não sobre aquilo que não queremos, mas sobre aquilo que QUEREMOS. Qual organização social pode substituir o capitalismo vigente? De quais tipos de líderes nós precisamos? As alternativas do século XX obviamente não servem.

Então não culpe o povo e suas atitudes: o problema não é a corrupção ou a ganância, mas o sistema que nos incita a sermos corruptos. A solução não é o lema “Main Street, not Wall Street”, mas sim mudar o sistema em que a Main Street não funciona sem o Wall Street. Tenham cuidado não só com os inimigos, mas também com falsos amigos que fingem nos apoiar e já fazem de tudo para diluir nosso protesto. Da mesma maneira que compramos café sem cafeína, cerveja sem álcool e sorvete sem gordura, eles tentarão transformar isto aqui em um protesto moral inofensivo. Mas a razão de estarmos reunidos é o fato de já termos tido o bastante de um mundo onde reciclar latas de Coca-Cola, dar alguns dólares para a caridade ou comprar um cappuccino da Starbucks que tem 1% da renda revertida para problemas do Terceiro Mundo é o suficiente para nos fazer sentir bem. Depois de terceirizar o trabalho, depois de terceirizar a tortura, depois que as agências matrimoniais começaram a terceirizar até nossos encontros, é que percebemos que, há muito tempo, também permitimos que nossos engajamentos políticos sejam terceirizados – mas agora nós os queremos de volta.

Dirão que somos “não americanos”. Mas quando fundamentalistas conservadores nos disserem que os Estados Unidos são uma nação cristã, lembrem-se do que é o Cristianismo: o Espírito Santo, a comunidade livre e igualitária de fiéis unidos pelo amor. Nós, aqui, somos o Espírito Santo, enquanto em Wall Street eles são pagãos que adoram falsos ídolos.

Dirão que somos violentos, que nossa linguagem é violenta, referindo-se à ocupação e assim por diante. Sim, somos violentos, mas somente no mesmo sentido em que Mahatma Gandhi foi violento. Somos violentos porque queremos dar um basta no modo como as coisas andam – mas o que significa essa violência puramente simbólica quando comparada à violência necessária para sustentar o funcionamento constante do sistema capitalista global?

Seremos chamados de perdedores – mas os verdadeiros perdedores não estariam lá em Wall Street, os que se safaram com a ajuda de centenas de bilhões do nosso dinheiro? Vocês são chamados de socialistas, mas nos Estados Unidos já existe o socialismo para os ricos. Eles dirão que vocês não respeitam a propriedade privada, mas as especulações de Wall Street que levaram à queda de 2008 foram mais responsáveis pela extinção de propriedades privadas obtidas a duras penas do que se estivéssemos destruindo-as agora, dia e noite – pense nas centenas de casas hipotecadas…

Nós não somos comunistas, se o comunismo significa o sistema que merecidamente entrou em colapso em 1990 – e lembrem-se de que os comunistas que ainda detêm o poder atualmente governam o mais implacável dos capitalismos (na China). O sucesso do capitalismo chinês liderado pelo comunismo é um sinal abominável de que o casamento entre o capitalismo e a democracia está próximo do divórcio. Nós somos comunistas em um sentido apenas: nós nos importamos com os bens comuns – os da natureza, do conhecimento – que estão ameaçados pelo sistema.

Eles dirão que vocês estão sonhando, mas os verdadeiros sonhadores são os que pensam que as coisas podem continuar sendo o que são por um tempo indefinido, assim como ocorre com as mudanças cosméticas. Nós não estamos sonhando; nós acordamos de um sonho que está se transformando em pesadelo. Não estamos destruindo nada; somos apenas testemunhas de como o sistema está gradualmente destruindo a si próprio. Todos nós conhecemos a cena clássica dos desenhos animados: o gato chega à beira do precipício e continua caminhando, ignorando o fato de que não há chão sob suas patas; ele só começa a cair quando olha para baixo e vê o abismo. O que estamos fazendo é simplesmente levar os que estão no poder a olhar para baixo…

Então, a mudança é realmente possível? Hoje, o possível e o impossível são dispostos de maneira estranha. Nos domínios da liberdade pessoal e da tecnologia científica, o impossível está se tornando cada vez mais possível (ou pelo menos é o que nos dizem): “nada é impossível”, podemos ter sexo em suas mais perversas variações; arquivos inteiros de músicas, filmes e seriados de TV estão disponíveis para download; a viagem espacial está à venda para quem tiver dinheiro; podemos melhorar nossas habilidades físicas e psíquicas por meio de intervenções no genoma, e até mesmo realizar o sonho tecnognóstico de atingir a imortalidade transformando nossa identidade em um programa de computador. Por outro lado, no domínio das relações econômicas e sociais, somos bombardeados o tempo todo por um discurso do “você não pode” se envolver em atos políticos coletivos (que necessariamente terminam no terror totalitário), ou aderir ao antigo Estado de bem-estar social (ele nos transforma em não competitivos e leva à crise econômica), ou se isolar do mercado global etc. Quando medidas de austeridade são impostas, dizem-nos repetidas vezes que se trata apenas do que tem de ser feito. Quem sabe não chegou a hora de inverter as coordenadas do que é possível e impossível? Quem sabe não podemos ter mais solidariedade e assistência médica, já que não somos imortais?

Em meados de abril de 2011, a mídia revelou que o governo chinês havia proibido a exibição, em cinemas e na TV, de filmes que falassem de viagens no tempo e histórias paralelas, argumentando que elas trazem frivolidade para questões históricas sérias – até mesmo a fuga fictícia para uma realidade alternativa é considerada perigosa demais. Nós, do mundo Ocidental liberal, não precisamos de uma proibição tão explícita: a ideologia exerce poder material suficiente para evitar que narrativas históricas alternativas sejam interpretadas com o mínimo de seriedade. Para nós é fácil imaginar o fim do mundo – vide os inúmeros filmes apocalípticos –, mas não o fim do capitalismo.

Em uma velha piada da antiga República Democrática Alemã, um trabalhador alemão consegue um emprego na Sibéria; sabendo que todas as suas correspondências serão lidas pelos censores, ele diz para os amigos: “Vamos combinar um código: se vocês receberem uma carta minha escrita com tinta azul, ela é verdadeira; se a tinta for vermelha, é falsa”. Depois de um mês, os amigos receberam a primeira carta, escrita em azul: “Tudo é uma maravilha por aqui: os estoques estão cheios, a comida é abundante, os apartamentos são amplos e aquecidos, os cinemas exibem filmes ocidentais, há mulheres lindas prontas para um romance – a única coisa que não temos é tinta vermelha.” E essa situação, não é a mesma que vivemos até hoje? Temos toda a liberdade que desejamos – a única coisa que falta é a “tinta vermelha”: nós nos “sentimos livres” porque somos desprovidos da linguagem para articular nossa falta de liberdade. O que a falta de tinta vermelha significa é que, hoje, todos os principais termos que usamos para designar o conflito atual – “guerra ao terror”, “democracia e liberdade”, “direitos humanos” etc. etc. – são termos FALSOS que mistificam nossa percepção da situação em vez de permitir que pensemos nela. Você, que está aqui presente, está dando a todos nós tinta vermelha.

*   *   *

Slavoj Žižek speaks at Occupy Wall Street: Transcript (Impose)

BY SARAHANA » Don’t fall in love with yourselves

Posted on October 10, 2011

slavoj zizek speaking at occupy wall street

Yesterday at noon, this blog’s trusty mentor, the Slovenian philosopher-scholar Slavoj Žižek, spoke at Zuccotti Park, where Occupy Wall Street protests are being held. Here is a full transcript of his speech. Update: Transcript of the Q&A portion of the talk has been posted as well.

Made some corrections, Oct 25, 6:30PM EST

— TRANSCRIPT —

They are saying we are all losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our money. We are called socialists, but here there is always socialism for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property, but in the 2008 financial crash-down more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if all of us here were to be destroying it night and day for weeks. They tell you we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers. We are the awakening from a dream that is turning into a nightmare.

We are not destroying anything. We are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself. We all know the classic scene from cartoons. The cat reaches a precipice but it goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is nothing beneath this ground. Only when it looks down and notices it, it falls down. This is what we are doing here. We are telling the guys there on Wall Street, “Hey, look down!”

In mid-April 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV, films, and novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel. This is a good sign for China. These people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dreaming. Here, we don’t need a prohibition because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.

So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful, old joke from Communist times. A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends: “Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say. If it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: “Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theatres show good films from the west. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.” This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom— war on terror and so on—falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here. You are giving all of us red ink.

There is a danger. Don’t fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember, carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after, when we will have to return to normal lives. Will there be any changes then? I don’t want you to remember these days, you know, like “Oh. we were young and it was beautiful.” Remember that our basic message is “We are allowed to think about alternatives.” If the taboo is broken, we do not live in the best possible world. But there is a long road ahead. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want. But what do we want? What social organization can replace capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want?

Remember. The problem is not corruption or greed. The problem is the system. It forces you to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this process. In the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice cream without fat, they will try to make this into a harmless, moral protest. A decaffienated protest. But the reason we are here is that we have had enough of a world where, to recycle Coke cans, to give a couple of dollars for charity, or to buy a Starbucks cappuccino where 1% goes to third world starving children is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture, after marriage agencies are now outsourcing our love life, we can see that for a long time, we allow our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back.

We are not Communists if Communism means a system which collapsed in 1990. Remember that today those Communists are the most efficient, ruthless Capitalists. In China today, we have Capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American Capitalism, but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize Capitalism, don’t allow yourself to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and Capitalism is over. The change is possible.

What do we perceive today as possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand, in technology and sexuality, everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever, but look at the field of society and economy. There, almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes by little bit for the rich. They tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for health care, they tell you, “Impossible, this means totalitarian state.” There’s something wrong in the world, where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for healthcare. Maybe we need to set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standard of living. We want a better standard of living. The only sense in which we are Communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of privatized by intellectual property. The commons of biogenetics. For this, and only for this, we should fight.

Communism failed absolutely, but the problems of the commons are here. They are telling you we are not American here. But the conservatives fundamentalists who claim they really are American have to be reminded of something: What is Christianity? It’s the holy spirit. What is the holy spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other, and who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense, the holy spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street, there are pagans who are worshipping blasphemous idols. So all we need is patience. The only thing I’m afraid of is that we will someday just go home and then we will meet once a year, drinking beer, and nostaligically remembering “What a nice time we had here.” Promise yourselves that this will not be the case. We know that people often desire something but do not really want it. Don’t be afraid to really want what you desire. Thank you very much.

— END OF TRANSCRIPT —

Here’s Astra Taylor, who made the documentaries Zizek! and An Examined Life. (She also happens to be married to Jeff Mangum, who performed earlier in the week for the protestors.)

Free training included how to undo a handcuff:

– See more at: http://www.imposemagazine.com/bytes/slavoj-zizek-at-occupy-wall-street-transcript#sthash.XOa1Suzj.dpuf

Edward O. Wilson: The Riddle of the Human Species (N.Y.Times)

THE STONEFebruary 24, 2013, 7:30 pm

By EDWARD O. WILSON

The task of understanding humanity is too important and too daunting to leave to the humanities. Their many branches, from philosophy to law to history and the creative arts, have described the particularities of human nature with genius and exquisite detail, back and forth in endless permutations. But they have not explained why we possess our special nature and not some other out of a vast number of conceivable possibilities. In that sense, the humanities have not accounted for a full understanding of our species’ existence.

So, just what are we? The key to the great riddle lies in the circumstance and process that created our species. The human condition is a product of history, not just the six millenniums of civilization but very much further back, across hundreds of millenniums. The whole of it, biological and cultural evolution, in seamless unity, must be explored for an answer to the mystery. When thus viewed across its entire traverse, the history of humanity also becomes the key to learning how and why our species survived.

A majority of people prefer to interpret history as the unfolding of a supernatural design, to whose author we owe obedience. But that comforting interpretation has grown less supportable as knowledge of the real world has expanded. Scientific knowledge (measured by numbers of scientists and scientific journals) in particular has been doubling every 10 to 20 years for over a century. In traditional explanations of the past, religious creation stories have been blended with the humanities to attribute meaning to our species’s existence. It is time to consider what science might give to the humanities and the humanities to science in a common search for a more solidly grounded answer to the great riddle.

To begin, biologists have found that the biological origin of advanced social behavior in humans was similar to that occurring elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Using comparative studies of thousands of animal species, from insects to mammals, they have concluded that the most complex societies have arisen through eusociality — roughly, “true” social condition. The members of a eusocial group cooperatively rear the young across multiple generations. They also divide labor through the surrender by some members of at least some of their personal reproduction in a way that increases the “reproductive success” (lifetime reproduction) of other members.

Leif Parsons

Eusociality stands out as an oddity in a couple of ways. One is its extreme rarity. Out of hundreds of thousands of evolving lines of animals on the land during the past 400 million years, the condition, so far as we can determine, has arisen only about two dozen times. This is likely to be an underestimate, due to sampling error. Nevertheless, we can be certain that the number of originations was very small.

Furthermore, the known eusocial species arose very late in the history of life. It appears to have occurred not at all during the great Paleozoic diversification of insects, 350 to 250 million years before the present, during which the variety of insects approached that of today. Nor is there as yet any evidence of eusocial species during the Mesozoic Era until the appearance of the earliest termites and ants between 200 and 150 million years ago. Humans at the Homo level appeared only very recently, following tens of millions of years of evolution among the primates.

Once attained, advanced social behavior at the eusocial grade has proved a major ecological success. Of the two dozen independent lines, just two within the insects — ants and termites — globally dominate invertebrates on the land. Although they are represented by fewer than 20 thousand of the million known living insect species, ants and termites compose more than half of the world’s insect body weight.

The history of eusociality raises a question: given the enormous advantage it confers, why was this advanced form of social behavior so rare and long delayed? The answer appears to be the special sequence of preliminary evolutionary changes that must occur before the final step to eusociality can be taken. In all of the eusocial species analyzed to date, the final step before eusociality is the construction of a protected nest, from which foraging trips begin and within which the young are raised to maturity. The original nest builders can be a lone female, a mated pair, or a small and weakly organized group. When this final preliminary step is attained, all that is needed to create a eusocial colony is for the parents and offspring to stay at the nest and cooperate in raising additional generations of young. Such primitive assemblages then divide easily into risk-prone foragers and risk-averse parents and nurses.

Leif Parsons

What brought one primate line to the rare level of eusociality? Paleontologists have found that the circumstances were humble. In Africa about two million years ago, one species of the primarily vegetarian australopithecine evidently shifted its diet to include a much higher reliance on meat. For a group to harvest such a high-energy, widely dispersed source of food, it did not pay to roam about as a loosely organized pack of adults and young like present-day chimpanzees and bonobos. It was more efficient to occupy a campsite (thus, the nest) and send out hunters who could bring home meat, either killed or scavenged, to share with others. In exchange, the hunters received protection of the campsite and their own young offspring kept there.

From studies of modern humans, including hunter-gatherers, whose lives tell us so much about human origins, social psychologists have deduced the mental growth that began with hunting and campsites. A premium was placed on personal relationships geared to both competition and cooperation among the members. The process was ceaselessly dynamic and demanding. It far exceeded in intensity anything similar experienced by the roaming, loosely organized bands of most animal societies. It required a memory good enough to assess the intentions of fellow members, to predict their responses, from one moment to the next; and it resulted in the ability to invent and inwardly rehearse competing scenarios of future interactions.

The social intelligence of the campsite-anchored prehumans evolved as a kind of non-stop game of chess. Today, at the terminus of this evolutionary process, our immense memory banks are smoothly activated across the past, present, and future. They allow us to evaluate the prospects and consequences variously of alliances, bonding, sexual contact, rivalries, domination, deception, loyalty and betrayal. We instinctively delight in the telling of countless stories about others as players upon the inner stage. The best of it is expressed in the creative arts, political theory, and other higher-level activities we have come to call the humanities.

The definitive part of the long creation story evidently began with the primitive Homo habilis (or a species closely related to it) two million years ago. Prior to the habilines the prehumans had been animals. Largely vegetarians, they had human-like bodies, but their cranial capacity remained chimpanzee-size, at or below 500 cubic centimeters. Starting with the habiline period the capacity grew precipitously: to 680 cubic centimeters in Homo habilis, 900 in Homo erectus, and about 1,400 in Homo sapiens. The expansion of the human brain was one of the most rapid episodes of evolution of complex organs in the history of life.


Still, to recognize the rare coming together of cooperating primates is not enough to account for the full potential of modern humans that brain capacity provides. Evolutionary biologists have searched for the grandmaster of advanced social evolution, the combination of forces and environmental circumstances that bestowed greater longevity and more successful reproduction on the possession of high social intelligence. At present there are two competing theories of the principal force. The first is kin selection: individuals favor collateral kin (relatives other than offspring) making it easier for altruism to evolve among members of the same group. Altruism in turn engenders complex social organization, and, in the one case that involves big mammals, human-level intelligence.

The second, more recently argued theory (full disclosure: I am one of the modern version’s authors), the grandmaster is multilevel selection. This formulation recognizes two levels at which natural selection operates: individual selection based on competition and cooperation among members of the same group, and group selection, which arises from competition and cooperation between groups. Multilevel selection is gaining in favor among evolutionary biologists because of a recent mathematical proof that kin selection can arise only under special conditions that demonstrably do not exist, and the better fit of multilevel selection to all of the two dozen known animal cases of eusocial evolution.

The roles of both individual and group selection are indelibly stamped (to borrow a phrase from Charles Darwin) upon our social behavior. As expected, we are intensely interested in the minutiae of behavior of those around us. Gossip is a prevailing subject of conversation, everywhere from hunter-gatherer campsites to royal courts. The mind is a kaleidoscopically shifting map of others, each of whom is drawn emotionally in shades of trust, love, hatred, suspicion, admiration, envy and sociability. We are compulsively driven to create and belong to groups, variously nested, overlapping or separate, and large or small. Almost all groups compete with those of similar kind in some manner or other. We tend to think of our own as superior, and we find our identity within them.

The existence of competition and conflict, the latter often violent, has been a hallmark of societies as far back as archaeological evidence is able to offer. These and other traits we call human nature are so deeply resident in our emotions and habits of thought as to seem just part of some greater nature, like the air we all breathe, and the molecular machinery that drives all of life. But they are not. Instead, they are among the idiosyncratic hereditary traits that define our species.

The major features of the biological origins of our species are coming into focus, and with this clarification the potential of a more fruitful contact between science and the humanities. The convergence between these two great branches of learning will matter hugely when enough people have thought it through. On the science side, genetics, the brain sciences, evolutionary biology, and paleontology will be seen in a different light. Students will be taught prehistory as well as conventional history, the whole presented as the living world’s greatest epic.

We will also, I believe, take a more serious look at our place in nature. Exalted we are indeed, risen to be the mind of the biosphere without a doubt, our spirits capable of awe and ever more breathtaking leaps of imagination. But we are still part of earth’s fauna and flora. We are bound to it by emotion, physiology, and not least, deep history. It is dangerous to think of this planet as a way station to a better world, or continue to convert it into a literal, human-engineered spaceship. Contrary to general opinion, demons and gods do not vie for our allegiance. We are self-made, independent, alone and fragile. Self-understanding is what counts for long-term survival, both for individuals and for the species.

Edward O. Wilson is Honorary Curator in Entomology and University Research Professor Emeritus, Harvard University. He has received more than 100 awards for his research and writing, including the U. S. National Medal of Science, the Crafoord Prize and two Pulitzer Prizes in non-fiction. His most recent book is “The Social Conquest of Earth.”

*   *   *

Interview with Edward O. Wilson: The Origin of Morals (Spiegel)

February 26, 2013 – 01:23 PM

By Philip Bethge and Johann Grolle

American sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson is championing a controversial new approach for explaining the origins of virtue and sin. In an interview, the world-famous ant reseacher explains why he believes the inner struggle is the characteristic trait of human nature.

Edward O. Wilson doesn’t come across as the kind of man who’s looking to pick a fight. With his shoulders upright and his head tilting slightly to the side, he shuffles through the halls of Harvard University. His right eye, which has given him trouble since his childhood, is halfway closed. The other is fixed on the ground. As an ant researcher, Wilson has made a career out of things that live on the earth’s surface.

There’s also much more to Wilson. Some consider him to be the world’s most important living biologist, with some placing him on a level with Charles Darwin.

In addition to discovering and describing hundreds of species of ants, Wilson’s book on this incomparably successful group of insects is the only non-fiction biology tome ever to win a Pulitzer Prize. Another achievement was decoding the chemical communication of ants, whose vocabulary is composed of pheromones. His study of the ant colonization of islands helped to establish one of the most fruitful branches of ecology. And when it comes to the battle against the loss of biodiversity, Wilson is one of the movement’s most eloquent voices.

‘Blessed with Brilliant Enemies’

But Wilson’s fame isn’t solely the product of his scientific achievements. His enemies have also helped him to establish a name. “I have been blessed with brilliant enemies,” he says. In fact, the multitude of scholars with whom Wilson has skirmished academically is illustrious. James Watson, one of the discoverers of the double helix in DNA is among them, as is essayist Stephen Jay Gould.

At 83 years of age, Wilson is still at work making a few new enemies. The latest source of uproar is a book, “The Social Conquest of Earth,” published last April in the United States and this month in a German-language edition. In the tome, Wilson attempts to describe the triumphal advance of humans in evolutionary terms.

It is not uncommon for Wilson to look to ants for inspiration in his writings — and that proves true here, as well. When, for example, he recalls beholding two 90-million-year-old worker ants that were trapped in a piece of fossil metasequoia amber as being “among the most exciting moments in my life,” a discovery that “ranked in scientific importance withArchaeopteryx, the first fossil intermediary between birds and dinosaurs, and Australopithecus, the first ‘missing link’ discovered between modern humans and the ancestral apes.”

But that’s all just foreplay to the real controversy at the book’s core. Ultimately, Wilson uses ants to explain humans’ social behavior and, by doing so, breaks with current convention. The key question is the level at which Darwinian selection of human characteristics takes place. Did individuals enter into a fight for survival against each other, or did groups battle it out against competing groups?

Prior to this book, Wilson had been an influential champion of the theory of kin selection. He has now rejected his previous teachings, literally demolishing them. “The beautiful theory never worked well anyway, and now it has collapsed,” he writes. Today, he argues that human nature can only be understood if it is perceived as being the product of “group selection” — a view that Wilson’s fellow academics equate with sacrilege. They literally lined up to express their scientific dissent in a joint letter.

Some of the most vociferous criticism has come from Richard Dawkins, whose bestselling 1976 book “The Selfish Gene” first introduced the theory of kin selection to a mass audience. In a withering review of Wilson’s book in Britain’s Prospect magazine, Dawkins accuses a man he describes as his “lifelong hero” of “wanton arrogance” and “perverse misunderstandings”. “To borrow from Dorothy Parker,” he writes, “this is not a book to be tossed lightly aside. It should be thrown with great force.”

SPIEGEL recently sat down with sociobiologist Wilson to discuss his book and the controversy surrounding it.

SPIEGEL: Professor Wilson, lets assume that 10 million years ago some alien spacecraft had landed on this planet. Which organisms would they find particularly intriguing?

Wilson: Their interest, I believe, would not have been our ancestors. Primarily, they would have focused on ants, bees, wasps, and termites. Their discovery is what the aliens would report back to headquarters.

SPIEGEL: And you think those insects would be more interesting to them than, for example, elephants, flocks of birds or intelligent primates?

Wilson: They would be, because, at that time, ants and termites would be the most abundant creatures on the land and the most highly social creatures with very advanced division of labor and caste. We call them “eusocial,” and this phenomenon seems to be extremely rare.

SPIEGEL: What else might the aliens consider particularly interesting about ants?

Wilson: Ants engage in farming and animal husbandry. For example, some of them cultivate fungi. Others herd aphids and literally milk them by stroking them with their antennae. And the other thing the aliens would find extremely interesting would be the degree to which these insects organize their societies by pheromones, by chemical communication. Ants and termites have taken this form of communication to extremes.

SPIEGEL: So the aliens would cable back home: “We have found ants. They are the most promising candidates for a future evolution towards intelligent beings on earth?”

Wilson: No, they wouldn’t. They would see that these creatures were encased in exoskeletons and therefore had to remain very small. They would conclude that there was little chance for individual ants or termites to develop much reasoning power, nor, as a result, the capacity for culture. But at least on this planet, you have to be big in order to have sufficient cerebral cortex. And you probably have to be bipedal and develop hands with pulpy fingers, because those give you the capacity to start creating objects and to manipulate the environment.

SPIEGEL: Would our ancestors not have caught their eye?

Wilson: Ten million years ago, our ancestors indeed had developed a somewhat larger brain and versatile hands already. But the crucial step had yet to come.

SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Wilson: Let me go back to the social insects for a moment. Why did social insects start to form colonies? Across hundreds of millions of years, insects had been proliferating as solitary forms. Some of them stayed with their young for a while, guided them and protected them. You find that widespread but far from universal in the animal kingdom. However, out of those species came a much smaller number of species who didn’t just protect their young, but started building nests that they defended …

SPIEGEL: … similar to birds.

Wilson: Yes. And I think that birds are right at the threshold of eusocial behaviour. But looking at the evolution of ants and termites again, there is another crucial step. In an even smaller group, the young don’t only grow up in their nest, but they also stay and care for the next generation. Now you have a group staying together with a division of labor. That is evidently the narrow channel of evolution that you have to pass through in order to become eusocial.

SPIEGEL: And our ancestors followed the same path?

Wilson: Yes. I argue that Homo habilis, the first humans, also went through these stages. In particular, Homo habilis was unique in that they already had shifted to eating meat.

SPIEGEL: What difference would that make?

Wilson: When animals start eating meat, they tend to form packs and to divide labor. We know that the immediate descendants of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, gathered around camp sites and that they actually had begun to use fire. These camp sites are equivalent to nests. That’s where they gathered in a tightly knit group, and then individuals went out searching for food.

SPIEGEL: And this development of groups drives evolution even further?

Wilson: Exactly. And, for example, if it now comes to staking out the hunting grounds, then group stands against group.

SPIEGEL: Meaning that this is the origin of warfare?

Wilson: Yes. But it doesn’t take necessarily the forming of an army or a battalion and meeting on the field and fighting. It was mostly what you call “vengeance raids”. One group attacks another, maybe captures a female or kills one or two males. The other group then counterraids, and this will go back and forth, group against group.

SPIEGEL: You say that this so called group selection is vital for the evolution of humans. Yet traditionally, scientists explain the emergence of social behavior in humans by kin selection.

Wilson: That, for a number of reasons, isn’t much good as an explanation.

SPIEGEL: But you yourself have long been a proponent of this theory. Why did you change your mind?

Wilson: You are right. During the 1970s, I was one of the main proponents of kin selection theory. And at first the idea sounds very reasonable. So for example, if I favored you because you were my brother and therefore we share one half of our genes, then I could sacrifice a lot for you. I could give up my chance to have children in order to get you through college and have a big family. The problem is: If you think it through, kin selection doesn’t explain anything. Instead, I came to the conclusion that selection operates on multiple levels. On one hand, you have normal Darwinian selection going on all the time, where individuals compete with each other. In addition, however, these individuals now form groups. They are staying together, and consequently it is group versus group.

SPIEGEL: Turning away from kin selection provoked a rather fierce reaction from many of your colleagues.

Wilson: No, it didn’t. The reaction was strong, but it came from a relatively small group of people whose careers are based upon studies of kin selection.

SPIEGEL: Isn’t that too easy? After all, 137 scientists signed a response to your claims. They accuse you of a “misunderstanding of evolutionary theory”.

Wilson: You know, most scientists are tribalists. Their lives are so tied up in certain theories that they can’t let go.

SPIEGEL: Does it even make a substantial difference if humans evolved through kin selection or group selection?

Wilson: Oh, it changes everything. Only the understanding of evolution offers a chance to get a real understanding of the human species. We are determined by the interplay between individual and group selection where individual selection is responsible for much of what we call sin, while group selection is responsible for the greater part of virtue. We’re all in constant conflict between self-sacrifice for the group on the one hand and egoism and selfishness on the other. I go so far as to say that all the subjects of humanities, from law to the creative arts are based upon this play of individual versus group selection.

SPIEGEL: Is this Janus-faced nature of humans our greatest strength at the end of the day?

Wilson: Exactly. This inner conflict between altruism and selfishness is the human condition. And it is very creative and probably the source of our striving, our inventiveness and imagination. It’s that eternal conflict that makes us unique.

SPIEGEL: So how do we negotiate this conflict?

Wilson: We don’t. We have to live with it.

SPIEGEL: Which element of this human condition is stronger?

Wilson: Let’s put it this way: If we would be mainly influenced by group selection, we would be living in kind of an ant society.

SPIEGEL: … the ultimate form of communism?

Wilson: Yes. Once in a while, humans form societies that emphasize the group, for example societies with Marxist ideology. But the opposite is also true. In other societies the individual is everything. Politically, that would be the Republican far right.

SPIEGEL: What determines which ideology is predominant in a society?

Wilson: If your territory is invaded, then cooperation within the group will be extreme. That’s a human instinct. If you are in a frontier area, however, then we tend to move towards the extreme individual level. That seems to be a good part of the problem still with America. We still think we’re on the frontier, so we constantly try to put forward individual initiative and individual rights and rewards based upon individual achievement.

SPIEGEL: Earlier, you differentiated between the “virtue” of altruism and the “sin” of individualism. In your book you talk about the “poorer and the better angels” of human nature. Is it helpful to use this kind of terminology?

Wilson: I will admit that using the terminology of “virtue” and “sin” is what poets call a “trope”. That is to say, I wanted the idea in crude form to take hold. Still, a lot of what we call “virtue” has to do with propensities to behave well toward others. What we call “sin” are things that people do mainly out of self-interest.

SPIEGEL: However, our virtues towards others go only so far. Outside groups are mainly greeted with hostility.

Wilson: You are right. People have to belong to a group. That’s one of the strongest propensities in the human psyche and you won’t be able to change that. However, I think we are evolving, so as to avoid war — but without giving up the joy of competition between groups. Take soccer …

SPIEGEL: … or American football.

Wilson: Oh, yes, American football, it’s a blood sport. And people live by team sports and national or regional pride connected with team sports. And that’s what we should be aiming for, because, again, that spirit is one of the most creative. It landed us on the moon, and people get so much pleasure from it. I don’t want to see any of that disturbed. That is a part of being human. We need our big games, our team sports, our competition, our Olympics.

SPIEGEL: “Humans,” the saying goes, “have Paleolithic emotions” …

Wilson: … “Medieval institutions and god-like technology”. That’s our situation, yeah. And we really have to handle that.

SPIEGEL: How?

Wilson: So often it happens that we don’t know how, also in situations of public policy and governance, because we don’t have enough understanding of human nature. We simply haven’t looked at human nature in the best way that science might provide. I think what we need is a new Enlightenment. During the 18th century, when the original Enlightenment took place, science wasn’t up to the job. But I think science is now up to the job. We need to be harnessing our scientific knowledge now to get a better, science-based self-understanding.

SPIEGEL: It seems that, in this process, you would like to throw religions overboard altogether?

Wilson: No. That’s a misunderstanding. I don’t want to see the Catholic Church with all of its magnificent art and rituals and music disappear. I just want to have them give up their creation stories, including especially the resurrection of Christ.

SPIEGEL: That might well be a futile endeavour …

Wilson: There was this American physiologist who was asked if Mary’s bodily ascent from Earth to Heaven was possible. He said, “I wasn’t there; therefore, I’m not positive that it happened or didn’t happen; but of one thing I’m certain: She passed out at 10,000 meters.” That’s where science comes in. Seriously, I think we’re better off with no creation stories.

SPIEGEL: With this new Enlightenment, will we reach a higher state of humanity?

Wilson: Do we really want to improve ourselves? Humans are a very young species, in geologic terms, and that’s probably why we’re such a mess. We’re still living with all this aggression and ability to go to war. But do we really want to change ourselves? We’re right on the edge of an era of being able to actually alter the human genome. But do we want that? Do we want to create a race that’s more rational and free of many of these emotions? My response is no, because the only thing that distinguishes us from super-intelligent robots are our imperfect, sloppy, maybe even dangerous emotions. They are what makes us human.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Wilson, we thank you for this conversation.

Interview conducted by Philip Bethge and Johann Grolle

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions? (Yale e360)

22 OCT 2012

On issues ranging from genetically modified crops to nuclear power, environmentalists are increasingly refusing to listen to scientific arguments that challenge standard green positions. This approach risks weakening the environmental movement and empowering climate contrarians.

By Fred Pearce

From Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring to James Hansen’s modern-day tales of climate apocalypse, environmentalists have long looked to good science and good scientists and embraced their findings. Often we have had to run hard to keep up with the crescendo of warnings coming out of academia about the perils facing the world. A generation ago, biologist Paul Ehrlich’sThe Population Bomb and systems analysts Dennis and Donella Meadows’The Limits to Growth shocked us with their stark visions of where the world was headed. No wide-eyed greenie had predicted the opening of an ozone hole before the pipe-smoking boffins of the British Antarctic Survey spotted it when looking skyward back in 1985. On issues ranging from ocean acidification and tipping points in the Arctic to the dangers of nanotechnology, the scientists have always gotten there first — and the environmentalists have followed.

And yet, recently, the environment movement seems to have been turning up on the wrong side of the scientific argument. We have been making claims that simply do not stand up. We are accused of being anti-science — and not without reason. A few, even close friends, have begun to compare this casual contempt for science with the tactics of climate contrarians.

That should hurt.

Three current issues suggest that the risks of myopic adherence to ideology over rational debate are real: genetically modified (GM) crops, nuclear power, and shale gas development. The conventional green position is that we should be opposed to all three. Yet the voices of those with genuine environmental credentials, but who take a different view, are being drowned out by sometimes abusive and irrational argument.

In each instance, the issue is not so much which side environmentalists should be on, but rather the mind-set behind those positions and the tactics adopted to make the case. The wider political danger is that by taking anti-scientific positions, environmentalists end up helping the anti-environmental sirens of the new right.

The issue is not which side environmentalists should be on, but rather the mind-set behind their positions.

Most major environmental groups — from Friends of the Earth to Greenpeace to the Sierra Club — want a ban or moratorium on GM crops, especially for food. They fear the toxicity of these “Frankenfoods,” are concerned the introduced genes will pollute wild strains of the crops, and worry that GM seeds are a weapon in the takeover of the world’s food supply by agribusiness.

For myself, I am deeply concerned about the power of business over the world’s seeds and food supply. But GM crops are an insignificant part of that control, which is based on money and control of trading networks. Clearly there are issues about gene pollution, though research suggesting there is a problem is still very thin. Let’s do the research, rather than trash the test fields, which has been the default response of groups such as Greenpeace, particularly in my home country of Britain.

As for the Frankenfoods argument, the evidence is just not there. As the British former campaigner against GMs, Mark Lynas, points out: “Hundreds of millions of people have eaten GM-originated food without a single substantiated case of any harm done whatsoever.”

The most recent claim, published in September in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, that GM corn can produced tumors in rats, has been attacked as flawed in execution and conclusion by a wide range of experts with no axe to grind. In any event, the controversial study was primarily about the potential impact of Roundup, a herbicide widely used with GM corn, and not the GM technology itself.

Nonetheless, the reaction of some in the environment community to the reasoned critical responses of scientists to the paper has been to claim a global conspiracy among researchers to hide the terrible truth. One scientist was dismissed on the Web site GM Watch for being “a longtime member of the European Food Safety Authority, i.e. the very body that approved the GM corn in question.” That’s like dismissing the findings of a climate scientist because he sits on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the “very body” that warned us about climate change. See what I mean about aping the worst and most hysterical tactics of the climate contrarians?

Stewart Brand wrote in his 2009 book Whole Earth Discipline: “I dare say the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than any other thing we’ve been wrong about.” He will see nods of ascent from members of a nascent “green genes” movement — among them environmentalist scientists, such as Pamela Ronald of the University of California at Davis — who say GM crops can advance the cause of sustainable agriculture by improving resilience to changing climate and reducing applications of agrochemicals.

Yet such people are routinely condemned as apologists for an industrial conspiracy to poison the world. Thus, Greenpeace in East Asia claims that children eating nutrient-fortified GM “golden rice” are being used as “guinea pigs.” And its UK Web site’s introduction to its global campaigns says, “The introduction of genetically modified food and crops has been a disaster, posing a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health.” Where, ask their critics, is the evidence for such claims?

The problem is the same in the energy debate. Many environmentalists who argue, as I do, that climate change is probably the big overarching issue facing humanity in the 21st century, nonetheless often refuse to recognize that nuclear power could have a role in saving us from the worst.

For environmentalists to fan the flames of fear of nuclear power seems reckless and anti-scientific.

Nuclear power is the only large-scale source of low-carbon electricity that is fully developed and ready for major expansion.

Yes, we need to expand renewables as fast as we can. Yes, we need to reduce further the already small risks of nuclear accidents and of leakage of fissile material into weapons manufacturing. But as George Monbiot, Britain’s most prominent environment columnist, puts it: “To abandon our primary current source of low carbon energy during a climate change emergency is madness.”

Monbiot attacks the gratuitous misrepresentation of the risks of radiation from nuclear plants. It is widely suggested, on the basis of a thoroughly discredited piece of Russian head-counting, that up to a million people were killed by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. In fact, it is far from clear that many people at all — beyond the 28 workers who received fatal doses while trying to douse the flames at the stricken reactor — actually died from Chernobyl radiation. Certainly, the death toll was nothing remotely on the scale claimed.

“We have a moral duty,” Monbiot says, “not to spread unnecessary and unfounded fears. If we persuade people that they or their children are likely to suffer from horrible and dangerous health problems, and if these fears are baseless, we cause great distress and anxiety, needlessly damaging the quality of people’s lives.”

Many people have a visceral fear of nuclear power and its invisible radiation. But for environmentalists to fan the flames — especially when it gets in the way of fighting a far more real threat, from climate change — seems reckless, anti-scientific and deeply damaging to the world’s climate future.

One sure result of Germany deciding to abandon nuclear power in the wake of last year’s Fukushima nuclear accident (calamitous, but any death toll will be tiny compared to that from the tsunami that caused it) will be rising carbon emissions from a revived coal industry. By one estimate, the end of nuclear power in Germany will result in an extra 300 million tons of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere between now and 2020 — more than the annual emissions of Italy and Spain combined.

Last, let’s look at the latest source of green angst: shale gas and the drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, used to extract it. There are probably good reasons for not developing shale gas in many places. Its extraction can pollute water and cause minor earth tremors, for instance. But at root this is an argument about carbon — a genuinely double-edged issue that needs debating. For there is a good environmental case to be made that shale gas, like nuclear energy, can be part of the solution to climate change. That case should be heard and not shouted down.

Opponents of shale gas rightly say it is a carbon-based fossil fuel. But it is a much less dangerous fossil fuel than coal. Carbon emissions from burning natural gas are roughly half those from burning coal. A switch from coal to shale gas is the main reason why, in 2011, U.S. CO2 emissions fell by almost 2 percent.

Many environmentalists are imbued with a sense of their own exceptionalism and original virtue.

We cannot ignore that. With coal’s share of the world’s energy supply rising from 25 to 30 percent in the past half decade, a good argument can be made that a dash to exploit cheap shale gas and undercut this surge in coal would do more to cut carbon emissions than almost anything else. The noted environmental economist Dieter Helm of the University of Oxford argues just this in a new book, The Carbon Crunch, out this month.

But this is an unpopular argument. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, was pilloried by activists for making the case that gas could be a “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon future. And when he stepped down, his successor condemned him for taking cash from the gas industry to fund the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Pope was probably wrong to take donations of that type, though some environment groups do such things all the time. But his real crime to those in the green movement seems to have been to side with the gas lobby at all.

Many environmentalists are imbued with a sense of their own exceptionalism and original virtue. But we have been dangerously wrong before. When Rachel Carson’s sound case against the mass application of DDT as an agricultural pesticide morphed into blanket opposition to much smaller indoor applications to fight malaria, it arguably resulted in millions of deaths as the diseases resurged.

And more recently, remember the confusion over biofuels? They were a new green energy source we could all support. I remember, when the biofuels craze began about 2005, I reported on a few voices urging caution. They warned that the huge land take of crops like corn and sugar cane for biofuels might threaten food supplies; that the crops would add to the destruction of rainforests; and that the carbon gains were often small to non-existent. But Friends of the Earth and others trashed them as traitors to the cause of green energy.
Well, today most greens are against most biofuels. Not least Friends of the Earth, which calls them a “big green con.” In fact, we may have swung too far in the other direction, undermining research into second-generation biofuels that could be both land- and carbon-efficient.

We don’t have to be slaves to science. There is plenty of room for raising questions about ethics and priorities that challenge the world view of the average lab grunt. And we should blow the whistle on bad science. But to indulge in hysterical attacks on any new technology that does not excite our prejudices, or to accuse genuine researchers of being part of a global conspiracy, is dishonest and self-defeating.

We environmentalists should learn to be more humble about our policy prescriptions, more willing to hear competing arguments, and less keen to engage in hectoring and bullying.

Richard A. Muller: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (N.Y.Times)

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Published: July 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”