Author: Tom Slee

Via Mark Thoma, an unbelievably arrogant article by Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace. He is now in favour of nuclear power. I don’t mind that, even though I don’t agree with him — changing your mind is not a bad thing. But something about his article really pisses me off, and it’s the conceit of the man. Look at these excerpts:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my
compatriots. … Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the
environmental movement needs to update its views, too…

Here we go. Because he has changed his mind, Moore is now absolutely certain that everyone else needs to change their mind too. There is no modesty here; no asking the question: if I was wrong then, why should anyone listen to me now? no asking the question: if I was wrong then, might I be wrong now? No. Mr. Moore is as certain in his position now as he was then, insisting that everyone else needs to listen to him. Sorry. No can do.

I
don’t want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the
hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous….

Some years ago I took part in hearings on nuclear power in Ontario where thoughtful people from both sides took part. I was asked, by a member of the Ontario nuclear industry, exactly this question. I answered that it was a non-question. The statement is true of course, but that doesn’t mean you adopt every technology despite its dangers. You look at each case and make a decision. In fact, most of the arguments that Moore makes now in favour of nuclear energy are exactly the same as the ones being made then. For example, regarding Three Mile Island:

What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in
fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was
designed to do — prevent radiation from escaping … And although the reactor
itself was crippled, there was no injury or death…

See what I mean? Just because Patrick Moore didn’t notice that Three Mile Island was a success story, he assumes no one else did either. Well, people did, on both sides of the debate. And some of us who opposed nuclear power then knew that it was kind of a success story, and wrestled with that, and decided that we still opposed nuclear power. But Moore apparently wasn’t among those wrestling with that problem, because he doesn’t listen to other people, he just tells them what to think,

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental
activists in changing my mind on this subject. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunicationfrom the
anti-nuclear priesthood…

This is Mr. Moore trying to maintain for himself the position of rebel-with-a-cause. Not only was he a rebel then (an outspoken, independent-minded activist) but he’s a rebel now, against the people he was then a part of. But now he calls Friends of the Earth "the anti-nuclear priesthood" as if they are some kind of power centre. Give him a year or two and he’ll be railing against political correctness.

There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the
staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. …  nuclear is, by elimination, the
only viable substitute for coal. It’s that simple.

Oh come on. Here is that certainty again, that arrogant "if I can’t think of alternatives, then no one else can either" black-and-white thinking. He is so certain of his own opinions that they are now obvious. Until he changes his mind, and then his new position is obvious too.

Let me be absolutely clear. It’s not the mind changing I object to. When it comes to that, I am firmly of the John Maynard Keynes school of thought (in response to a question about what he does when he gets new information, he answered "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?") And it’s not the support for nuclear power that I object to, even though I don’t agree. Many thoughtful people are in favour of nuclear power. It’s the self-importance of his simple-minded thought that gets my blood pressure up.

And happy Easter to you too.

Link: Economist’s View: Global Warming and Nuclear Power.

1. That global warming is a big deal. It’s because of listening to the radio in the mid ’70’s and hearing all those stories from experts about how there wouldn’t be any oil in 1990. They made sense at the time, global warming makes sense now. But I don’t really believe it.
2. That open source software is new and different. What puts me off is the hype about the whole Cathedral and Bazaar, Coase’s Penguin, Sand Pile & Power Laws, Economics of Networks, and Long Tail thing. It’s all what I think of as "Wired Thinking" (after the magazine) — it’s not entirely without merit, and it’s not completely stupid, but it has no sense of history and so it’s not nearly as smart or original or new as it thinks it is. Speaking of which….
3. That quantum computing will ever amount to anything. Anything that features the word "entanglement" so prominently is more new age than physics. The EPR thought experiments were dreamed up 70 years ago. Nothing interesting came out of them in the first 60, so why should anything interesting come out of them now? This is a field driven by its cool-sounding name (remember "quantum chaos" anyone?), and it’s just possible enough that it could be important, complicated enough that it can be portrayed as cutting edge to likely patrons and smart-but-impressionable graduate students, and far enough out to be not easily disproved.  Speaking of which…
4. That nanotechnology is new. Come on people, it’s just chemistry and engineering. All that talk of "self-assembly" is just a new word for "chemical reaction" but it sounds oh-so-edgy. Get over it.
5. That the world is flat (in the Thomas Friedman sense of the world). This one really should not need saying. It’s clearly a case of what Daniel Davies calls "globollocks" but it seems to be taken as obviously true by a big section of the business community. ‘Nuff said.
6. (Because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition). That whole idea of memes. Yes, I enjoyed Dawkin’s Selfish Gene, Dennett’s Consciousness Explained and Blackmore’s Consciousness, An Introduction. But I just don’t see what the idea of a meme adds to any discussion about anything at all. Really.

Why do I think I’m entering the "grumpy old bastard" phase of my life? Anyone else got any things they don’t believe?

I’m trying a new way tp make this weblog work with the book. This is why it’s good to start before the book gets published – it takes me months to figure this stuff out.

Anyway, there is now a category for each chapter (see over there on the right, unless you’re using an RSS reader, which you probably are), and any material relevant will be categorized by chapter. What that means is that the pages over on my book site can have links that go straight to some relevant material. I’ve added some links to the table of contents page and the links page. I hope these will get expanded in the next few weeks and months, especially as I finished the index tonight, so it’s one step closer to actually being printed.

Written (based on a talk, so it is a bit casual and disjointed) a little while ago, but newly relevant given the fuss about the Seymour Hersh New Yorker piece. Sample paragraph:

THE US BUNKER BUSTER | The US government ought to
recognize the taboo is in its favor and not try to develop a new
generation of weapons with the aim of making them somehow useful on the
battlefield. I’m afraid a lot of people in the Pentagon think, “We are
so rich in nuclear weapons, it is a shame not to use them.” They should
learn we are so rich in people and infrastructure that we will risk
losing that if we encourage others, by our own example, to look
positively on the use of nuclear weapons.

Link: NPQ.

I’d heard about this but not seen it anywhere until now. Orders at drive-through restaurants are sometimes processed long distance — that is, the person you talk to is not in the restaurant, but may be on another continent somewhere. What does it mean? Haven’t a clue. Odd though.

Link: The Long-Distance Journey of a Fast-Food Order – New York Times.

In a story that will have a familiar ring to it for anyone from Canada, the Grauniad reports on HMV (aka Waterstone’s) being given the go ahead to take over Ottakars: another example of how free markets fail to preserve diversity once economies of scale kick in.

Link: Chain reaction from Guardian Unlimited: Culture Vulture.

"Waterstone’s choose about 5,000 books a year and promote them so that they sell tremendously – at the expense of other books," he said. "If a book isn’t taken up within a month, it is replaced. Ottakar’s, on the other hand, gives books more time to take off. There are two categories of books – the tortoises and the hares. If this deal goes ahead, we will end up with all hares and no tortoises." And it’s not just authors who are apprehensive; figures from across the industry have voiced their concerns. Just last week I spoke to a representative from the Booksellers’ Association, who told me that in his opinion, an Ottakar’s takeover would have a devastating effect on publishers’ chances of introducing debut novelists – or even the lesser-known works of popular authors – to new readers.

And the Ottakar’s story is just the visible face of what is happening to independent bookshops across the UK. Although Ottakar’s is a chain, it shares many of the strengths and weaknesses of the independents. Its branches are locally run by staff who are sensitive to the needs of their local communities and choose their stock accordingly (in contrast with Waterstone’s, which nowadays operates a policy of centralised buying), but it has neither the revenue nor the advertising clout to compete on a pricing basis with the bigger shops. As a result, Ottakar’s have seen their sales and profits falling, making a buyout ever more likely.

I'd been looking for this poem for some time, and finally found it this evening.

  A BED FOR THE NIGHT

– removed. I don't know what the course is, but someone at Cal State can find a proper source for this poem. Don't rely on random blog posts for material.