I have been very concerned about population growth. I cannot see how the planet can sustain us all if the population continues to grow exponentially.
So I was very encouraged to come across this fantastic talk by Hans Rosling which looks at the subject of population growth and uses statistics that I found very re-assuring.
In particular I found it very interesting that his talk dismisses the assertion of some on
the Christian right who claim that Muslims are going to take over the
world by default via their reproductive rates. He does not address the difference in birth rate between religions within the same country - which has raised fears of an eventual Muslim 'take over' in some Western European countries. However I think this talk presents a lot of good information. And I particularly loved the presentations of the graphs over time.
I have been reading "Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming." (Book review coming soon on my reading blog).
In this book Oreskes and Conway trace some of the scariest science
denying trends in recent decades and expose the links to political
ideology.
Some of the politically motivated organizations who are
frequently found trying to refute widely accepted scientific theories
are identified in "Merchants of Doubt". One of the most prominent is the Heartland Institute. It has the impressive record of using all its might to deny the
dangers of second hand smoke, among other things. Unsurprisingly, given it's free
market MO, it also denies anthropogenic climate change and uses it might to try and cast doubt on this.
If you start with the premise that
regulation by governments is wrong then you may be predisposed to
overlook evidence that certain activities, promoted in our free market,
are actually harmful. And of course you will be set on a path of
denying that one of the obvious and effective ways to curtail the harm
is through regulation.
After reading about The Heartland Institute, in The Merchants of Doubt, I was interested to come across this billboard that was recently put but by The Heartland Institute.
Here is a snippet from the Heartland Institute's web site that was issued with the unveiling of the billboard on 3rd May.
“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010). http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/05/03/do-you-still-believe-global-warming-billboards-hit-chicago
Umm, what??
I have come across a lot of advocates of global warming in recent years; in the media, in books and on-line. And I can honestly say that Manson, Castro, Kaczynski, bin Laden and Lee have never been prominent, or even referred to!
The public
backlash to this offensive billboard caused them to pull the billboard
after only 24 hours. They issued a statement that you can read here on their website. Did they apologise for their shocking tactics? Read for yourself:
"We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to
experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the
climate.”
I like this video response by Peter Sinclair, to Bast's murderers, tyrants and madmen claim.
Some interesting footage from the
80's and 90's. You know, around the time that that anthropogenic
climate change became almost universally* accepted amongst climate
scientists, despite what the mainstream media, climate damaging
industry and right wing capitalists would have you believe.
I got goosebumps and might have even teared up a little the first time I saw Memory performed live (if my memory serves me correctly). But this is not the memory I am referring to, although the lyrics are relevant to my musings.
I have been noticing the very human tendency to re-write the past
giving ourselves a more golden glow. I see this tendency at work in other people, and have talked to people who have also witnessed this tendency in others. This brings me to wonder how much I embody this
foible.
What I find perplexing, and perhaps a little disheartening, is that the very act of reminiscing may
change our memories. On a neuronal level, accessing a memory pathway
seems to have the potential to change that pathway, effectively
re-writing our memories. Which perhaps explains the mechanism behind
why people often really believe their version of the past, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary.
I first read about this neuronal re-writing of memories in The Brain That Changes Itself
- a book that I would highly recommend to anyone. But if you want a
quick peek at this idea you could check out this
article on Smithsonian.com: How Our Brains Make Memories.* The researcher behind this article (Nadar) thinks "it may be impossible for humans or any other animal to bring a memory to mind without altering it in some way." I really hope that he is not correct about this. We rely on our memories so much. I think that our view of our self and our place in our community/society largely hangs on our memories and the emotional and narrative meaning we attach to them. If our memories are unreliable then how can we be certain about anything meaningful?
From a psychological perspective I think that we sometimes use
this "coping strategy" to cushion ourselves from regrets. But do we then reduce our chances of learning from the past? Without learning from the past how can our future selves grow into a more developed and mature version of
our self?
I recently read "The Sense of an Ending" by Julian Barnes for book club. I found the themes of the book very interesting. I liked the way Barnes dealt
with the unreliability of memories and examined how our version of the
past may not be as accurate as we like to believe. He examined the idea
of corroboration of memories.
As we move through time how can we look back to our past and recall events with any accuracy or objectivity? Maybe we can't. But maybe, with corroboration from others who were there, and even from our own writing at the time, we can discover truths about our selves and our history. The big question though still remains: even with accurate reminiscing can we use the information to change those parts of ourselves that it would be beneficial to change.
I have been thinking about what steps we can take to
minimize the corruption of our memories and preserve a truthful recollection of our past.
Reading the book has lead me to want
to journal more regularly so that I will have more of my own "in the
moment" reflections to look back on in years to come. I understand that my record of my thoughts, behavior and interaction right now will already be skewed and by no means objective. But, being contemporaneous, any records I make now will surely be more reliable than my future memories of this present time.
I will also be interested in corroboration from your memories and records of the past - so please try to lay
down some accurate memories.
But then again, why would I want accurate memories? Left to the natural effects of time and reminiscing, perhaps in the future I will remember my current self as much more witty, intelligent, beautiful, caring and happy than I really am. Maybe that will be more comforting as I slump in my nursing home arm chair dribbling than remembering myself with more accuracy. Is it that what happened to Griselda? Is her memory of her youthful self is more glamorous than warranted?
Memory
All alone in the moonlight
I can smile at the old days
I was beautiful then
I remember the time I knew what happiness was
Let the memory live again
* The article includes a description of an experiment to test memory in rats that included administering electric shocks to the rats so I do not recommend reading past the first page of the article if you will find this distressing.
