Climate Change and Possible Futures – Part I

The Environment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has laid out a range of scenarios for what might happen to the planet, atmosphere, biosphere, and human society over the course of the next century. These scenarios are based on different “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs), each with its own story line about population growth, economic activity, land use patterns, energy use, lifestyle, climate policy, and mitigation efforts.  RCPs provide time-dependent projections of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Their purpose is to contribute to a better understanding of the uncertainties, interactions and dynamics involved in climate change and provide guidance to policy makers.

In the IPCC Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (2014), the authors compare four RCPs: RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5.  These four RCPs don’t exhaust all plausible trajectories but do cover a reasonable range of severity, from the pretty manageable to the horrific.  At the pretty manageable end is RCP2.6, which  projects that by 2100 the mean global temperature rise will be 1°C, with a likely increase range of 0.3 to 1.7°C. At the other end, RCP8.5 projects  a mean temperature rise of 3.7°C and a likely increase range of 2.6 to 4.8°C.

The RCPs are only as good as their story lines – that is, what they choose to assume about humanity’s  near-future  in order for their projections to be plausible. So, what are the assumptions  that inform these Pathways?

Stay tuned…..

 

Strongly-felt Thoughts Trying to Make an Impression on an Imaginary Audience

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Some may say the prosody of thoughts simply reflects their emotionality: words flowing on a sea of feeling.  But when we engage in imaginary conversations, are the feelings heard in the words independent from the communicative intention, which is to have an effect on an imagined audience? Emotional expression is calibrated in the real world – why not in the world inside our heads?

This is not to say that emotions don’t exist except in the service of communicative intent, only that take away the (real or imagined) audience and it’s like the emotion isn’t landing anywhere. The emotion loses part of its raison d’etre.

When I hear the emotional inflections in thought streams, they sound like they are trying to drive a point home – to create an impression. If thoughts themselves are goal-directed, wouldn’t the emotionality that adheres to their semantic content also be goal-directed in some way?

Emotions, Toxicity, and the New Victorians

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Feeling shame, guilt, contrition, or sadness may not be pleasant but these emotions aren’t “toxic”.  Shame, guilt and contrition help us learn from our mistakes and eventually move on. Sad thoughts allow us to appreciate the preciousness of what was lost and the preciousness of what is still here. Thoughts that amplify bad feelings aren’t necessarily dysfunctional – they may serve a useful purpose. Some unpleasant thoughts lead to breakthroughs; others become repetitive and reap diminishing returns. It’s not the quality of unpleasantness that counts; it’s the sense of whether the thought is valuable or useful in some way. We should be careful not to pre-judge a thought or emotional state just because it is unpleasant. Sometimes we have to bear with negative feelings and thoughts for a while. Sometimes dwelling feels right.

Of course, some of us are prone to unproductive rumination and so a heuristic to nip rumination in the bud may be useful, at least some times and for some topics. And using positive self-talk to counter habitual self-condemnation can also be a valid tool in the emotional regulation toolkit.  If we’re stuck, we need tools to become unstuck.

But that’s a different thing altogether from considering  negative emotions in general as “toxic”. Or, worse, avoiding people going through spells of unhappiness because their presence is “toxic”.  This vigilance against “negativity” reminds me of the Victorians – except it’s not sexuality the New Victorians are suppressing, it’s their feelings. And just as the old Victorians shunned the “sexually degenerate”, the New Victorians shun the unsmiling.

Climate Change: time to get over Us versus Them and focus on What and When

The Environment

Just 10% of Americans currently say that human-caused climate change is not happening or is not about to happen. Climate change “dismissives” are a vanishing species. Disagreement is mostly about how fast, how much, possible effects and what the best course of action is. We’re wasting our time bemoaning the unbelievers, or trying to convert them.  It’s time to move on to the hard part: considering plausible scenarios and weighing the ol’ pros and cons of different approaches to mitigation and adaptation.

 

The Meaning of Conservative

Politics and Economics

The main dictionary definition of “conservative” is “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.”  In European and Latin American history, “conservative” usually referred to supporters of the Church (and sometimes landed gentry), which was opposed to business interests. A strong strain of paternalism runs through the history of the European/Latin brand of conservatives. Pro-business advocates were (and still are) called “liberals” in Europe (if you read the Economist, a liberal is pro-business and has nothing to do with “traditional values”).  In America, due to the vagaries of political coalitions and animosities, being pro-business slowly evolved to be labeled “conservative”, partly due to shared antagonism with traditional conservatives towards the State.

It is true that traditionalists and the pro-business want limited government, but their reasons are different (for the former, it is more to protect sacred values; for the latter, it is more to be free to build and creatively destroy – hardly a “conservative” impulse). But does overlap in some concerns warrant a common label?

In America, pro-business types and social conservatives have formed an alliance. Sometimes common cause and common adversaries lead members of different groups to adopt at least some of the views of one’s allies. But that is not the same as whether these diverse views go together “naturally”.  Separate from its historical association with conservatism in America, is being pro-business inherently conservative? In what sense?

Robots and Office Jobs

Politics and Economics

Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release (March 30, 2016), the total number employed in the US for All Occupations was 137,896,660. Here is the breakdown of number employed in each occupational group:

  1. Office and Administrative Support: 21,846,420
  2. Sales and Related (including Retail): 14,462,120
  3. Food Preparing and Serving: 12,577,080
  4. Transportation and Material Moving: 9,536,610
  5. Production: 9,073,290
  6. Education and Training: 8,542,670
  7. Healthcare Practitioners and Technical: 8,021,800
  8. Food and Beverage Serving Workers: 7,054,960
  9. Business and Financial Operations: 7,032,560
  10. Management: 6,936,990
  11. Construction and Extraction: 5,477,820
  12. Installation, Maintenance and Repair; 5,374,150
  13. Building and Grounds Maintenance: 4,407,050
  14. Personal Care and Service: 4,307,500
  15. Computer and Mathematical: 4,005,250
  16. Healthcare Support: 3,989,910
  17. Protective Service: 3,351,620
  18. Cooks and Food Preparation Workers: 3,147,210
  19. Architecture and Engineering: 2,475,390
  20. Community and Social Service: 1,972,140
  21. Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media:1,843,600
  22. Life, Physical, and Social Science: 1,146,110
  23. Legal: 1,062,370
  24. Farming, Fishing, and Forestry: 454,230

What I find interesting here is that administrative support jobs are by far the biggest occupational group. And yet for decades, prognosticators have been saying the computer will make office work near obsolete. So why are there more office jobs than ever? And what bearing does this have on the “robots will be taking your job soon’ argument?

Expectations and Assessments in Research

Scientific Encounters

In a randomized controlled trial, individuals with MS who played a research version of the Posit Science brain training game “Brain HQ” improved 29% on neuropsychological tests, compared to 15% improvement in the control group who played “ordinary video games.”  Both groups received weekly coaching sessions. The “placebo group” was actually more compliant in the study, playing on average 19 hours more than their study counterparts.

I’m curious why the researchers called the control group a “placebo” group, which assumes any effects are essentially psychological. Given that playing some “ordinary” video games have been associated with cortical changes, what is the basis of this assumption? I also want to know more about the expectations of study participants. Did these expectations differ depending on study condition?  I suspect the reason  the controls played their games a lot more was they were having more fun. If one condition was more effortful and less fun than the other,  would the groups differ in any systematic way in their  expectations of cognitive change or in how they approach the post-training  assessment tests?

I was recently involved in a study involving game-assisted cognitive training and remember a participant who cancelled a post-training assessment because he hadn’t gotten much sleep and didn’t want to take the tests when tired. Would he have still cancelled if he had no hope or expectation of improvement? When you invest a lot of time and effort in something, you want something to show for it. It doesn’t matter that participants aren’t informed of testing results;  some participants will probably still be motivated to do better. But if participation is all fun and little work, would a participant be as motivated?

There are plenty of papers about the connection between expectations, personal investment and tests scores in academic contexts – but I couldn’t find any on the role of these factors on assessments in research. Please, someone, do a study!

References:

NYU Langone Medical Center / New York University School of Medicine. “At-home cognitive remediation may help cognitive symptoms in multiple sclerosis.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 April 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160416094758.htm>.

Abstract: P2.170 – An Adaptive Computer-Based Cognitive Training Program Improves Cognitive Functioning in Adults with Multiple Sclerosis (MS): Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Active-Placebo-Controlled 12-Week Trial

Hope and Climate Change, Part II

The Environment

Sometimes when I sound a note of hope about climate change, others seem irritated or even angry. As if hope negates strong measures, and unless we take strong measures, the situation is truly hopeless.  As if hope engenders complacency. But hope can spur action, especially hope tempered by a sense of urgency and an understanding that sacrifice is also part of the equation.

Since much of my hope has to do with economic development, advances in technology, and cultural trends, resistance to my specific message of hope may also reflect the anti-technology, anti-business, and anti-modernity bias that’s pretty common within the environmentalist movement.  Within their dystopian imaginations, some environmentalists maintain a utopian vision of small farmers living modestly and in harmony with nature: a pre-capitalist world of plain living and simple virtues.  Not exactly compatible with a vision of big cities and big farms.

Hope and Climate Change, Part I

The Environment

My last post ended on a note of optimism: continued economic growth, cultural change and technological development can go a long way in ameliorating climate change, and the effects thereof. In short: with economic development, empowerment of women, intensification of sustainable agriculture, and urbanization, human populations plummet and wild habitat expands.  Technological advances and changing consumption patterns in developed countries will reduce the environmental impact of human activity. Examples would be improved seed stock, the de-materialization of production processes, increased supply chain efficiencies, and a shift away from having fancy things as markers of status to having fancy experiences. Kelp noodles, anyone?

Not to imply the ride will be smooth. Some countries will increase their carbon footprint as their economies pick up. The newly affluent in less developed countries will be enamored of fancy things. But these countries don’t have to repeat the US pattern in the 20th century, with all the decades of excess, waste, and environmental degradation that implies. They will be able to take advantage of the already developed technologies and efficiencies that reduce carbon emissions. And with the increase in urbanization and agricultural productivity, less land will be shared and more spared for the resurgence of the biosphere.

Demographics, Wealth, Income and Inequality: Part II – Factor in the Golden Years

Politics and Economics

For most Americans, a major contributor to wealth is home equity, which comprises about a quarter of the wealth of individuals 65 and older. Retirement accounts and mutual funds are also important sources of wealth.  According to the ICI Fact Book, an estimated 90 million individual investors owned mutual funds in 2014. These investors held 89 percent of total mutual fund assets, directly or through retirement plans. About 53.2 million households (43% of all households) owned mutual funds. Among households owning mutual funds, the median amount invested in mutual funds was $103,000. Most households that own mutual funds have moderate incomes – 91% below $200,000/year. Most investors are over 50 and a large majority (91%) is saving for retirement.

One reason the age profile of income and wealth matters is that a lot of proposed solutions to inequality focus on making “the rich” pay more in taxes. But consider: at age 65, life expectancy is about 20 years and uncompensated healthcare expenses will average $20,000 a year. That’s $400,000 total.

Except for homes, most assets can be readily turned into revenue streams at retirement. These include the value of bank accounts, bonds and securities, savings bonds, stocks and mutual funds, life insurance policies, IRAs and KEOGH accounts, defined contribution accounts, real estate holdings, and business equity.  Just 26% of Americans have at least $300,000 of such assets at or near retirement age. With an average life expectancy of about 20 years after 65, and assuming a retirement age of 65, $300,000 would translate to roughly $1700 extra a month. Perhaps enough for property taxes, home insurance, utilities, home repairs, and paying  the mortgage  – the latter still owed by  two-thirds of the 65 and older crowd.  Then Social Security would pay for remaining expenses. In theory.