Climate Change; a new religion

Climate change is the new religion. Your beliefs define you. You can be a global warmer, a sceptic or simply not interested. The first or second is preferable. It’s better to have considered the arguments than not thought about them at all.  The volume of information is daunting. Like a religion, it’s provided by those with faith, who have belief in their doctrines, so impartiality can be difficult to find. Warning, entering the debates may cause more confusion than demystification. The science is lauded and denied in equal parts.

The science is mostly about Co2 emissions (the greenhouse effect). Human activity is responsible needs to reduce C02 to 350 parts per million (ppm). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? (Hansen et. al. 2008) claims  the level in Sept 2008 was 385 ppm. Hansen recommends phasing out all coal use (except where CO2 is captured) and ‘adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon concluding’. The paper concludes “Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate….The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”

The opposition is an eclectic mix of politics, The sun is the cause of global warming (or not). Natural variations create climate change. The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar predicts a significant change in sunspot activity December 31 2012. The Optimum Population Trust call for reductions in population. The Global Warming Policy Foundation challenges government policy for mitigating the effects of global warming without saying why. Deniers and Sceptics (Top Ten) applauded the hacked email exchanges from the Climatic Research foundation at UEA as conclusive evidence that the science was flawed. The CND (all these years on) are saying nuclear power is not the answer. Then there is the BNP and the conspiracy theorists who see climate change as a front for political domination led by the FBI, CBI, Illuminati, socialists, communists; take your pick.  

Al Gore is either a hero or a fake depending on which side you are on. Apart from his Inconvenient Truth, other offerings for the record include 11th Hour , the Age of Stupid   and the Esoteric Agenda. I’ll throw Zietgiest into the mix; after all Christmas is a time for fantasy.

Digital Christmas

How many will spend Christmas attached to laptop or mobile phone? If Christmas is about tradition then it’s worth remembering the ghost of Christmas Past was an analogue one; family, friends and social activities like board games. Playing Trivial Pursuit without the Internet was not that far back in time. Today, the memory required for such pastimes is being challenged. Is Google Making us Stupid?  and Is Google Killing General Knowledge? suggest real changes in the human brain. Should we be afraid? The ability to adapt to external change is at the core of evolution. As Nietzsche’s  experience with a typewriter changed his writing style so instant digital access to communication and information is  changing how we process thought.  We’re no longer reading in depth. We skim and flit through pages, continually changing topics. The Stumbleupon Syndrome has us addicted to the unexpected. Google ensures we can always find what we are looking for. The Internet has taken the pressure off memorising facts as stand-alone pieces of information. Potentially the next decade should see us all with access to the tools of learning. Assessment will be less about recall and more about critical evaluation, application and reflection. Student Future carries a laptop in the way Student Past had a dictionary. In a similar vein, Christmas Future is digital. The 24/7 virtual world has us all connected. Our traditional analogue customs and habits are at stake unless we make a stand and turn off the connections. Return to family, friends and board games and stick the invitation to Google (and Facebook and Twitter etc)  up the chimney. It might be harder than you think and that in itself is something we should really be afraid of.

Challenging Google

A French court has fined Google for reproducing books without paying for the right to do so. The US Authors Guild have also sued Google for copyright infringement. The compensation settlement covers books published in the US, UK and Australia but is not yet in force. It’s taken three years for the case in France to be resolved. How many more are waiting? Google has taken the approach of do it first, worry later. The aim to scan every out of copyright/out of print book in existence is not going smoothly. Second hand, Independent and antiquarian book sellers, those of them that are still left in business, will be watching events with interest.

Catching up on Copenhagen

Coverage of the conference on climate change is muted. Usually the media loves promoting dramatic pictures of icebergs collapsing into the sea as evidence for global warming. But it’s all quiet.

If our carbon footprints are heading us towards doomsday, you would expect Copenhagen to be daily news. The absence of headline coverage is suspicious. It suggests official confusion as to which climate change lobby has it right – the believers or the sceptics. In the face of their conflicting evidence it’s difficult to know what to believe. But you would think that regardless of the science, we can’t treat our planet with disrespect and there be no consequences. I side with the global warmers and instinctively feel that our planet is a beautiful, self regulating place. We’re lucky to live here. The power of nature is uncontrollable and we should respect that. I have less sympathy for the sceptics; I’m suspicious of their connections with multinational corporations. The argument that changes are not only exaggerated, but natural and cyclical, sit ill with vested interests in encouraging us to carry on regardless.

Landfill worries me. Buried batteries poison the earth; as do plastic and polystyrene. It’s difficult to see how chemicals discharged into rivers, or deforestation and agricultural practices right on our doorsteps, are not affecting the ecosystem. Even closer to home is the absence of bees. Copenhagen is too far away; heads of governments too concerned with themselves to care about the planet. Change has to begin at home. Change the way we shop, cook, recycle, grow vegetables. The most wasteful time of the year is fast approaching. As we throw away all the packaging, and other Christmas debris,  spare a thought for the planet and resolve to be green.

Public journalism is best

You can learn more from the comments than news items themselves. Journalism should be impartial; a balanced account of the issues without emotive vocabulary.  The BBC have posted the headline ‘Should homosexuals face execution?’

The beeb say they wanted to “reflect the stark reality” of a Ugandan bill being debated in their parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. Comments left the reader in no doubt that homophobia is alive and well and living in the UK. The decision to print this headline was considered permissible. Substitute homosexual for a medical condition, an ethnic minority or a religion, and it would not be. The same applies for the comments. If the context was another section of society supposedly protected by equality and diversity legislation, they would have been moderated out..  

Bias and prejudice are expected in some areas of the media but you would hope for impartiality with the BBC and the Guardian (where I picked this up). Thankfully most comments were rational and reflected a more tolerant society. The contrast between the news report and reader’s opinions offers the best combination of left and right thinking creating a perfect journalistic balance.

The BBC have (as I write!) changed the headline to Should Uganda debate gay execution? The original screenshot can still be seen on the Guardian link. A response to the power of public journalism?

Digital copy right or wrong?

What rights do you have when you own a book? Daniel Reetz has built his own book scanning device (Wired) and comments show how other people routinely make digital copies. Does ownership give you the right to do this? Is there a difference if you’ve borrowed a book from a library, or a friend or found it on the train Bookcrossing style  It’s clear I need to get my head around the law on digital copyright; like using Refworks, or accessing the electronic journal database, it’s not one of my strongest points so any suggestions of where to start will be most welcome.

What I am clear about is that those who have control over access to information have power but it’s those who have the least power in society who seem to be most affected and have the quietest voice. As a result we hear less about the text discrimination they suffer on a daily basis and most about corporation fears regarding revenue losses. The Association of American Publishers (AAP) want the blind to pay for any additional means of access and the US Authors Guild argue that a speaking e-reader counts as an ‘unauthorized public performance’ so should be banned. Amazon are no better; offering authors the option of disabling Kindle’s read-aloud function and I’m totally unimpressed by them saying they will soon produce ‘a blind-accessible Kindle’ – why haven’t they done so already!

Google are going to  pay $125 million to resolve claims by authors and publishers of Google-scanned books and will pay legal fees, as well as create a Book Rights Registry where copyright holders can register works to get a cut of Internet advertising revenue and online book sales. Why can’t Google simply pay what it takes to ensure virtual text can be listened to as well as seen? Why can’t Amazon put the needs of the visually impaired first instead of last? Why can’t there be some joined up thinking on access to digital data to end the current discrimination?

Yes, this is procrastination as the assignment is still largely undone, but it needs to be said and we all need to take responsibility for adding our voices to raise awareness of these issues.

reasons for blogging no. 10

Adding to my regular theme of reasons for blogging I’m adding  procrastination when deadlines loom. Assignment title: How useful is the ‘subject of language’ approach in helping us to understand identity?

The bible is full of aphorisms. Some are less useful than others such as ‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’ plus long lists of other shalt nots (fornication,  idolatry, adultery,  etc). But the most useful edict of all appears at the start of genesis; ‘in the beginning there was the word’.

We make sense of our left-brain world through the logic and lists of language. Via agreed consensus, it names our realities and is the tool for defining knowledge.  Semiotics; the first science of linguistics proposed by Saussure, bought us the triple S of signifier, signified and sign through which we see that meaning is never fixed. When Gertrude Stein wrote ‘A rose is a rose is a rose’ she wasn’t being obtuse; she was using repetition in an attempt to pin the language down. The word rose has multiple significations (romance, valentine, beauty, interflora) so we use it in a notional way, we evoke the idea of a rose; recognisable to each of us in individual ways. We can’t capture a rose; we can only create a linguistic category of rose-ness. The single rose in our hand is a rose – but the word itself is conceptual and its meaning dependent on the cultural surround. 

Language is cultural, it reflects dominant social constructs. The language of gender is one of the best examples of this. As sex is fundamental to identity it’s clear that the language we use to ‘know’ ourselves is constrained by the environment in which we live. Boys don’t wear pink’ not because of the colour pink is pink is pink but because of the associations of the word.  It’s difficult to escape language. Even if we become subjective, work on intuition, develop sensory perception, adopt Zen, we have little control over the ways we are seen by others. Is the subject of language approach useful in understanding identity; yes, you could say that. I just need a few more thousand words in which to say it.

I like Christmas but…

It’s hard to avoid Christmas; not that wanting to is indicative of any Bah Humbug syndrome but the proliferation of tat in the shops gets on my nerves. Likewise the queues at the checkout when I want to purchase some non-Christmas item like a sandwich or a bottle of coke.

It’s the expectation of presents that grieves me most. In particular the notion of ‘must-haves’; this year Mr Squiggles and the debut cd by Susan Boyle.  I remain convinced that the lead-poisoning scare is a ploy started by a rival toy company looking to oust Go Go Pets from the best seller list. As for Susan Boyle I’ve listened to her on Amazon and she has a great voice but so has Amy Winehouse, kdlaing and Cecily Raines; Cecily who? My point exactly. There are many fabulous voices out there; the difference with Susan Boyle is that the full promotion wagon is racing you towards the checkouts with the sole aim of parting you from your money. The ‘must-have’ syndrome has nothing to do with the product; it’s what possession of the product says about you. Creating this sort of demand is a marketing dream and Christmas is the peak time of year for its fulfilment.

The cardinal points mark the sun’s 12 month journey around the sky. Quarter markers are the Spring and Autumn Equinox and the Summer and Winter Solstice. At around the 21st December the sun sinks to its lowest point and stays there for around three days, seemingly stationary, before changing direction and starting to rise again. This sign that the sun was reborn traditionally signalled 12 days of celebration. Throughout time there are records of cultural partying at or shortly after the winter solstice; all connected in one way or another with a god or a hero returning from the dead.

It’s good to have time off with family and friends at Christmas; have a few drinks, wind down and reflect before another year starts all over again. What’s less good is the commercial materialism that accompanies it and is increasing into a madness that most people can’t afford and don’t really want to get caught up in. Mark the date in your calendar of the Winder Solstice on 21st December and spare a thought for the real meaning of Christmas.

one hundred!

I notice I’m the 8th person here on blogs.lincoln.ac.uk to pass the 100 mark; nothing to celebrate regards coming in first but a significant achievement in terms of motivation. Several times I’ve reflected and invited comments on the purpose of blogging; coming to the conclusion that at the end of the day I do it mostly for myself. It helps me focus on work related issues and find the links between my different areas of interest. In the past few weeks I’ve been using the blog for my OU course; I have a joint blog with the University of Kent at http://labyrinth.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk and am supporting an external WordPress blog set up by a colleague at http://blindinglygood.wordpress.com – you could say that blogging has become part of what I do. Blogging is my CPD; a reflective record of achievements. Overall blogging is fun and picking up the odd comment along the way is a bonus. I like having a one-stop online area that constitutes my virtual identity. I’d like to blog every day, commenting on news items and overheard bits of conversation or how today a colleague dressed up as a book worm to promote the library opening hours; a good old fashioned analogue way of getting people’s attention! But every day is an unrealistic target; once a week seems to be manageable, at the moment I’m on a bit of a roll!

OU week 5: knowing ourselves

We’re sexed at birth. Then it’s rarely mentioned again. We introduce ourselves with what we do rather than Hi I’m Sue, I’m female. We only see ourselves through the medium of reflection. Our identity is the face in the mirror or how we are seen by others. The accuracy of this depends on how honest we are. They say the mirror doesn’t lie but we have nothing to compare it with. We can’t ‘see’ ourselves from the outside; we only ‘feel’ ourselves from within. This split lies at the heart of Lacan’s theory of identity construction. The child sees itself in the mirror as a whole image but feels it is made up of disparate parts. Somehow it has to reconcile the internal consciousness with the social and cultural expectations of the external world. Subjectivity is achieved through identification with external discursive practice which in turn is produced by linguistic signs. A fundamental aspect of identity is sexual difference; we wear it like a precursor of future expectation and opportunities. Freud’s in here too; Lacan reinterprets the Oedipal struggle as the child aligns itself appropriately and represses all that insatiated desire into the nether regions of the unconscious. All this theorising about subjectivity is just theory; somehow we develop from screaming egotistic bundles into functioning sociable individuals but there’s no consensus of agreement on how we do it.

I don’t know how old the study material is but there’s no mention of the Internet either as a source of information or as having cultural influence on identity; the opportunities it gave for ‘performance’ has been written about since the 1980s (Turkle, Borstein etc). The only medium is film with a focus on Hitchcock; nothing about gay cinema and although Butler’s Queer theory gets a mention,  the word gay is hardly used; instead the repetition of homosexual makes the text sound stilted in a repressed British sort of way. There’s no mention of intersex, transsexual or transgender, all integral to identity construction and the tiny reference to French feminism doesn’t do justice to the powerful challenge it presented on traditional male structures of dominance and control. In contrast with the other units which have been totally up to date this ones seems to be lagging in a bit of a time warp.