A political interlude

My apologies for the delay in posting the next blog. I have been working on two follow up postings regarding implications from the sapient governance series. But like most of you I have been attending to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and it has been a bit of a distraction.

As some of you may have read in a prior post, "For whom should I vote?", I questioned the viability of the then presumptive candidates and lamented that I was very disappointed in the political process that left us with an old out of touch guy (this isn't ageist since I am old myself; its the out of touch part that counts!), a young "Dreamer" with no visible experience, and an old timer who had learned a thing or two about triangulation in the political game. Well the latter lost out a while back, so we were down to the out-of-touch and the Dreamer.

Out-of-touch is out of consideration in my book. That leaves the Dreamer. Now dreaming per se isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is a very good thing to have aspirations and hope. Of course the former need to be realistic. By that, and given the nature of the problems that face not just America but the world, I mean that aspirations to fix the problems must actually be physically feasible. Since there is so much hype and misinformation floating around in the public domain about energy, global warming, population, and especially human nature, this means we should be putting an emphasis on the scientific aspects of these problems to determine feasible solutions (and yes, I mean human nature is a problem!) So I have been delving into the Dreamer's cadre of advisers to see if, in fact, his aspirations are grounded in science.

The preliminary look-see wasn't particularly encouraging. Of maybe ten advisers named for his energy and technology group only one was an actual scientist. The rest were lawyers or had degrees (where listed) other than in science or technology. I would have preferred to see a more balanced retinue with more direct advice from a few scientists knowledgeable in the areas I mentioned. The reason is that a scientific-educated world view is quite different from a law-educated one. We've had a governance process dominated by lawyers for a long time now and I think it is time for REAL change in the way we make decisions. Once, not long ago, the major problems facing society were jurisdictional, disputes over ownership and rights, etc. Lawyers were sort of natural go-to folk to consider policies that helped regulate society along these lines. But today the problems we face have a technical basis that scientists and technologists are better suited to handle. Of course many scientists don't see themselves as policy people so there has been a supply problem on that account. But there is a shift going on. Many, particularly senior, scientists are more and more becoming interested in the policy side of these issues. If you read their popular books on matters like global warming, you see the final chapters being devoted to recommendations, or at least warnings about the consequences unless some action is taken. So the need for policy development based on scientific understanding (and this definitely does not mean interpretation by a lawyer) is slowly creeping into their awareness.

Having heard the acceptance speech, last night, by the Dreamer, I am encouraged a bit by the rhetoric. He clearly has a different stated intention with regard to following the advice of scientists (their scientific findings anyway). That alone will be an improvement over the current situation. But I don't think it is enough. I would like to see, for example, the Whitehouse science advisor position elevated to cabinet status — we need a Secretary of Science and Technology to oversee science funding and have a direct line to the President. But the kinds of promises made (e.g. clean coal) suggest that politics more than science is still driving the rhetoric. As some of you know I am very skeptical about the potential for alternative energy systems to fully replace the energy flow we have realized from fossil fuels and that means we will have a reduced energy flow to work with in the future. We may create "green collar" jobs but I doubt very much that they will be the basis of a thriving, stable economy. And I seriously doubt that we will see a growth economy as energy flow diminishes. So the implied promises being touted are suspect still. They are still in the category of dreams.

Still, people want to have hope. They want to believe that everything is going to get better. And right now the Dreamer is providing what the progressives and liberals seem to want. So I propose an empirical test.

Let's suppose (and I hope) the Dreamer is elected as President. Furthermore, lets suppose (and hope) that there will be a Democratic majority in both Senate and House. If those conditions obtain, then the next four years should tell us a great deal about what we should expect from the political process and its ability to produce workable solutions. Everybody is putting their money on the Dreamer reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They will be looking to him to get us off of foreign oil in ten years. They will look for him to improve the economy (meaning making it grow again) by a number of means, all of which will require more energy not less.

My hypothesis is that if I am right about the magnitude and nature of these problems, the political process and governance system in this country will not be able to even substantially start solving these problems. If they are solvable in the way the current crop of lawyer-advisers believe then the Dreamer is probably the best shot at moving us in that direction. But if I am right we will see at most a brief respite from our current accelerating downward condition (e.g. getting out of Iraq should reduce our expenditures, freeing up some funds to help out with the financial market meltdown). I suspect that by the end of the first term we will have a pretty good indication of how feasible all this dreaming is.

As always I hope I am wrong.

Comments

[Sukhbir]

Great post.

Though I have my issues with both parties. I'm supporting the Dreamer because the Out-of-Touch person's party refuses to believe in many scientific facts/theories that I strongly support.

As I grew up from a child to a young adult, the science I've learned has made me the person I am today, especially physics (relativity, electromagnetism, photo-electric effect etc..). It has shaped almost every part my my life; the way I think about myself, others and the universe.

When I see an entire group of people denying the very foundation of my beliefs, it really frustrates me. Especially when I think about the education levels our leaders ought to have. That is why the Dreamer gets my vote.

[Wayne Hamilton]

Well, your adoption of the cabinet-level science idea prompted me to write Dan Kammen with that and another suggestion. We'll see what happens.

[George Mobus]

For those interested, Dan Kammen is the one real scientist adviser to Obama I mentioned. That is great that you made contact Wayne. That he has a PhD in physics is a wonderful thing. He could be a pivotal influence on energy matters if he has the Dreamer's ear.

[Sukhbir Dadwal]

For anybody interested, I stumbled on a website which relates to the issues of science in this years campaign. It also lists the candidates answers to some important scientific questions.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

[George Mobus]

Hi Sukhbir,

Thanks for that. I have brought it up and already I see problems.

Wayne, if you are still reading, let us know what you think.

George

[Wayne Hamilton]

Yes.
1. Good to see some response to the 'debate that never occurred'.
2. These responses are not written to be understood by scientests working in laboratories, in field experiments, in computer-modeling or in the classroom. They're in full of acromymic program names and jargon better understood by former scientists who now abide in managerial orbits.
3. 'CO2 capture' is a dumb idea in terms of cost effectiveness.
4. Loans to US auto manufacturers constitute a reward for laziness.
5. STEM progress must be stimulated by a sea change in content of US youths' exposure to 'entertainment' through the media by Internet and TV. Content should return to 'Doctor Science', historical mentoring and similar stimulation of bright young minds.
6. Two Nobel laureates? If Dan Kammen of IPCC is one, who's the other?
7. I'd like to see a version of this 'plan' that has not gone through political review.