Home Blog Page 425

The Fallout of an Unprepared Mind, and Nation

As reported by Nature, in the case of a nuclear catastrophe, the United States of America is woefully unprepared as a nation, because of the current severity of the problem and the statement of the potential response to nuclear threats by the US; this leaves the leadership with unprepared minds and the nation with an unprepared infrastructure and, potentially, will in order to combat this great threat, among the greatest alongside overpopulation and anthropogenic climate change/global warming.

We are in a lot of trouble. We do not need incompetent antics to prevent the work to reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation that increase the risks of a nuclear attack. As reported, “The United States is not prepared to deal with the aftermath of a major nuclear attack, despite North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons and the increasing tensions between nations overall.”

This was the assessment, not the judgment, of public-health experts taking part in a meeting on nuclear preparedness organized and, presumably, hosted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. An expert in disaster nursing at John Hopkins University, Tener Veenema, described the meeting as “an acknowledgement that the threat picture has changed, and that the risk of this happening has gone up.”

Veenema was the co-chair of the conference. As the reportage notes, with the decline and fall, and collapse, of the former Soviet Union, the central concern since 1991 of the United States in terms of research and preparedness for the possibility of a nuclear strike has been on terrorist attacks. The focus there is with what is called a dirty bomb. Those 1-kilotonne weapons that can then spray radioactive material.

Nature continues, “But North Korea is thought to have advanced thermonuclear weapons — each more than 180 kilotonnes in size — that would cause many more casualties than would a dirty bomb (see ‘Damage estimates’).”

Obviously, this increases the magnitude of the concern and the risk in terms of thermonuclear devastation. With thermonuclear warheads on the development horizon, potentially, the next response, according to Cham Dallas of the University of Georgia, is simply to shrug and then act as if nothing can be done.

“The US government’s spending on nuclear-weapons research and response has dropped drastically over the past few decades — as has the number of health workers with training in radiation medicine and management,” Naturereports, “According to a 2017 study1 by Dallas, more than half of emergency medical workers in the United States and Japan have no training in treating radiation victims.”

Photo by Paweł Czerwiński on Unsplash

Policy misadventures causing irreparable economic and ecological loss

In the last few years India has seen an unusual spurt in infrastructure projects. Be it expressways, townships or airports – there has been a spree of announcements and launch programmes. But how these projects are benefitting the economy or improving the lives of citizens of the country, no one knows. On the contrary, if we go by the recent developments, these big-ticket infrastructure projects seem to be pointing out to a bigger economic and ecological malaise.  

Economically, the most recent example of deliberate policy mismanagement is that of IL&FS, a major infrastructure development and finance company. The IL&FS exposure is apparently expanding everyday from the initial Rs 91,000 crore. Now it is established that even insurers are not safe. The IRDAI chairman SC Khuntia says insurers need to be proactive to policy holders’ interest. The LIC alone has over Rs 13,000 crore exposure to IL&FS, in other words this money of insuring people as of now is lost and chances of redemption is thin. The functioning of IL&FS has been unusual as it virtually gave unsecured loans to the road builders, who were supposed to collect tolls and repay. Tolls were collected but the loans were not repaid!

IL&FS does not have the money to pay back. Rating agencies have classified the equity of IL&FS as ‘junk’, which means it is absolutely un-redeemable. The common man’s money deposited with the LIC and SBI is virtually lost. Ways are being found to protect the funds of foreign investors. It is strange that major stakeholders LIC, SBI and Central Bank did not act to stop this. Financial analysts estimate that Rs 57,000 crore is the NPA (Non Performing Asset) or money virtually lost.

Real estate is a major sector known for dubious investments and financial dealings. The RBI in 2016 found that over Rs 5 lakh crore in the real estate and infra is locked in NPAs. A big group alone has Rs 1.21 lakh crore un-redeemable debts. Many of these have linkages with IL&FS. No lesson has been taken from the collapse of Jaypee group which took loans over Rs 95,000 crore in building Yamuna expressway and large townships. Now it is in trouble looking for an exit through acquisition again by government agencies.

Infrastructure like roads and flyovers are becoming source of illicit revenue generation by private parties. In fact, the tolls and road building sector may be emerging as the largest scam in the country, possibly larger than the 1992’s Harshad Mehta stock scam. It thrives on state acquiring land with public money, building roads with NHAI money in participation with some private agency and then lease out the public funded project to the private player for 30 years for collecting toll. Nobody answers why toll is needed for 30 years when not only Delhi-Noida Direct company but also many others recovered investments in three years.

Political masters have their vested interests in these projects and they make the required changes in the law to facilitate the private parties. The recent Supreme Court observation on Haryana Assembly amending the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA) 1900 removing protection to the forest cover in Aravali and thus opening up more than 28,000 acres of land in Gurugram and Faridabad to private builders, is a glaring example of this. The court asked the government not act on the amended provisions and described the move as a misadventure by the state government.

The Haryana action is to virtually loot the pristine environmental preserve of the Aravalis for the benefit of a few developers and their cohorts. It is none of their concern that the NCR, suffering severe environmental degradation as aquifers are choked and forest devastated for benefiting the sharks by causing severe pollution. In fact, the worst is happening in UP. Entire stretch of Ghaziabad, Bulandshahr, Noida, Hapur, Meerut, Agra and Aligarh are being turned into desert as mesh of roads, highways, expressways and airports are constructed. And who pays for it? The common man – who has no other option but to live in this degraded environment.

The high tolls, parking charges, airport tax and other levies are leading to the exploitation of the masses. It helps groups engaged in the collection of all these, who thrive at the cost of public funded companies or the model called PPP, which simply is private pilferage of public wealth. In monetary terms alone, nation has lost over several lakh crore in such ill-thought of non-projects. If GDP is today shrinking to 6.7 percent these mega failures are responsible for it. The IL&FS, tolls and many infra projects are symptomatic of a larger disease. Whether IL&FS debts are declared NPAs or not, its redemption is difficult. National discussion on IL&FS, Haryana, UP or other infra projects are needed to immediately to stop perpetual loot and regression of the development process.

Salman Khan promises to give work to choreographer Saroj Khan

Veteran choreographer Saroj Khan, who is not getting much work in the film industry, recently met superstar Salman Khan, who promised to give her work in his future projects. Actor Salman Khan and choreographer Saroj Khan, have worked together in films like Biwi Ho Toh Aisi (1988) and Andaz Apna Apna (1994).

Saroj Khan is known for her magical pairing with Madhuri Dixit in songs like Ek Do Teen (Tezaab), Choli Ke Peechey (Khalnayak) and many others. Recently, Saroj had reportedly said that the industry had stopped giving her work. When Salman got to know of it, he asked her to meet him.

Speaking about the meeting, Saroj said: “When we met, Salman asked me what I was doing nowadays. So I told him honestly that I don’t have any work [film offers], and that I am teaching Indian classical dance to young actresses. Upon hearing that, he said, ‘Now, you will work with me’. I know he is a man of his word, so he will keep his promise.”

Interview of Sadia Hameed: Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

0

Twitter suspended the account of Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) on frivolous grounds. In an interview with News Intervention, Sadia Hameed describes how Wahhabi influence is affecting the policies of social media giants.

Delhi Horse Show till April 7

Delhi Horse Show is back and will continue till April 7. The show is being conducted by the Army Polo & Riding Centre at the Army Equestrian Centre here. Over 500 competitors would display their skills in four different categories at the show. Participating teams and contingents include those from the Army, paramilitary, police forces, riding clubs, institutes, schools and colleges.

Over 400 horses are participating in the event which got underway on Friday. Competitors are grouped in four categories senior, young rider, junior and children. The events will be conducted in the early morning and late in the evening under floodlights

The Delhi Horse Show has been in existence since the early part of 20th century. It was discontinued in 1979 as the grounds of the Red Fort were no longer available and as a result the public interest waned. The show was revived in 1986 under the aegis of the President’s Estate Polo Club.

This show will feature events ranging from the more serious Dressage and Show Jumping events for India’s top riders to fun gymkhana events for children and teenagers.

Interview with Josh Johnson of Atheism 411

Josh Johnson is an Administrator of Atheism 411. Here we talk about his life and views.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Within personal and family history, was religion or atheism part of it?

Josh Johnson: A lot of my earlier memories take place on a theological seminary that my mother was attending, and then in and around churches and parsonages. While my mother’s brand of religion was always about as progressive as religion could get, she eventually left the church over their terrible treatment of the LGBTQ+ community – something that I’m still quite proud of.

I was lucky that my parents have always been about as progressive as their generation and upbringing allowed, as if that weren’t true, I’m sure I’d have turned into an entirely different person. Their liberal-slanting brand of worship was considered downright blasphemous by other members of my family, whose “Hellfire and Brimstone” style of theology was certainly trotted out for my benefit on more than one occasion.

Jacobsen: How have your views on religion and non-religion evolved over the years?

Johnson: It was part luck, and partially a genuine effort from my parents that allowed me to see such a wide spectrum of religious faiths as a child. I was a curious kid (on levels), and the more I compared and contrasted the beliefs, the more it became clear that even the seemingly similar denominations had deeply contrasting ideas on the same subjects. Multiple parties all speaking for what is supposedly the same all-powerful entity, each giving different sets of instructions… I don’t think the idea of being a believer ever really “took”.

I can remember trying to pray once as a kid, “testing God” if you will, and when the experience was as empty for me as it appeared for others, being pretty sure the whole thing was a ruse. I functionally gave up belief in any kind of god at about the point I gave up belief in Santa.

I was dragged to church for a few years more, until I started taking an active interest in getting a Sunday school teacher to quit in protest over my non-stop questions, at which point church became optional. I briefly opted to join the Unitarian Universalist church as a teenager, as an open atheist, in an effort to better socialize with folks my own age. While the “religion without a creed” was conceptually interesting, and I met a lot of good people, at the end of the day I still found it unfortunately rife with a more traditional style of church politicking.

Since then, my only interest in anything religious has been academic. It’s harder to talk people out of their baseless superstitions if you aren’t fairly well-versed in them.

Jacobsen:  In an examination of the landscape for atheism, there has been a large increase in the numbers of nonbelievers in the advanced industrial economies. Why?

Johnson: For starters, have you ever tried to live your life according to the dictations of an ancient “holy” text?  If we just look at the Bible, you’re given a poorly written and contradictory set of rules that discourages rational thought, and encourage every kind of bigotry you can think of.

No kind-hearted person can read any fair translation of the Bible from start to finish without finding it, as a complete work, to be a morally reprehensible tome. It’s pro-slavery, it’s proudly violent, and it calls on you to treat other human beings badly. While I’m far from the first to have noticed, the god of the Bible is a truly evil character that expects horrendous things of his followers.

In my observation, most “believers” don’t even believe most of the insane ramblings that their religions are based on. They just like belonging to a community, and in a great many cases their parents successfully implanted a fear of eternal torture in Hell, which keeps them from asking too many questions. If you think simply calling yourself a “Methodist” and paying lip-service to an invisible all-powerful man on holidays is all you need to protect yourself as you keep on living an otherwise “sin-filled” life, it’s easy enough to imagine how so many people can live “religious-lite” while running on auto-pilot.

Living in an age where practically everyone has some form of access to the internet, it’s become harder to call yourself religious and not feel embarrassed by large portions of what you’re meant to believe. To give a quick example, according to the Bible you’re not meant to go near a woman when she’s on her period. Simply touching a menstruating woman means you become unclean for a week, so says the source document for Christianity.

So why are there less and less religious people, in an increasingly digital age? Because the most ignorant person you know, knows that that’s an unacceptable stance. Sexism, racism, homophobia and more are required of a “good believer”, so says their texts. As self-education becomes as easy as picking up your phone, less and less people are willing to be associated with that kind of willful ignorance.

Jacobsen: However, alongside this increase in the atheist population within the nonbelievers, we have seen a collection of two reactions. Mostly male leaders, often white, in each case. 

The one stream is more, stronger, and more literal forms of fundamentalist preaching, especially within North America and often tied to white ethnic nationalism. 

Another stream is the attempts to reinterpret the purported holy texts by a collection of unqualified, hyperbolic, and humorless people to make the Bible – as it’s mostly Christian imagery – cool again, where this tends to have thinly veiled rightwing laissez-faire economics and social views built into them.

Do you notice these too? If so, why are these the streams of reactionary ‘movements’ in the religious and religious-curious camps?

Johnson: I have certainly noticed the unfortunate truth that many recognized “atheist leaders” (I don’t like the term, as atheists don’t have a central hierarchy or any kind of clergy analog, but I know what you mean) are white men, and I have certainly seen many white men – including atheists – push grossly unacceptable ideas into the public sphere as of late.

While the “alt-right” infestation currently plaguing the United States has certainly been felt in atheist communities, we (the collective crew at Atheism 411) count ourselves among their staunch opposition. I’ve seen some semi-famous atheist YouTubers and bloggers becoming unapologetically bad people. We’ve even had to throw out a contributor on at least two occasions in the last 6 years for seemingly out of no where throwing out some kind of bigotry – including bigotry against believers in religion themselves.

Before I go any further, I want to clarify my stance on religious people: I love them. Religious people are my family, my friends, my neighbors. Atheism 411 is a humanist group, and the reason I oppose religion is because it hurts people. Tangibly and regularly, religion harms innocent human beings all over the globe… and I oppose that. But humans are awesome, so we have a zero-tolerance policy (both in our public groups, and for our page contributors) for any kind of bigotry. You can disagree with someone without dehumanizing them, and anyone incapable of meeting that reasonable mandate is not welcome among us.

Which unfortunately brings us back to the question: Since atheists are human beings, and a human being can be any kind of person – including a bad one – we have dealt with our share of bigots. While I have seen racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic atheists pop up in our online communities, the response of myself and my admin team is always to remove them from the community ASAP, and usually to address the issue publicly if it affected more people than can be spoken to individually.

This of course opens us up to cries of being a “progressive echo-chamber”… which, to be honest, doesn’t bother me as much as some think it should. Don’t get me wrong; we welcome every kind of atheist into our community, political beliefs aside, as long as they follow a simple set of rules. But those rules include respectfully talking out your differences, and NOT being an openly bigoted bully. Which means that people who believe other human beings are somehow worth less, or entitled to less of a fulfilling life than they are, simply aren’t allowed in the club.

Funny thing about a club for humanists… You have to care about humans, to join. Even the ones who don’t look, love, or even think the way you do. Seems fair enough, to me.

As for people trying to make the Bible “cool”… I’ve not seen any successful attempts, let’s say that.

Jacobsen: How did you become involved in Atheism 411?

Johnson: I’m a marketing consultant by trade, and what finally got me to sign-up for Facebook was a specific client insisting that I start writing their FB ads for them, too.

I was a hold-out on social media as I’ve been creating websites myself since the late 90s, and the appeal/reach of social networking on other people’s websites hadn’t yet bashed me over the head.

I’ve always been an opinionated lad, but around 6 years ago I decided I wanted to start writing on atheistic topics. I found a Facebook page called “Atheism for Beginners” – founded by Matthew Happle – that had a modest following of around 7,000 people, and applied for a spot making content with a rather narcissistic image of myself juggling knives (I do that), with text imposed over it decrying the terrible bigotry that religion has a unique hand in perpetuating around the world.

I got that spot, and over time the page changed. For one, the name got swapped out for “Atheism 411” – which means “Atheist Information”, for those of you who have never experienced U.S. phone codes – and it grew in size considerably (around 46,500, at time of writing).

For a lot of its growth-period, my essays and other original content made up a large percentage of what the page put out, so I eventually took on a partnership with Matthew and became co-owner of A411 and its related Facebook pages and groups.

While Mattie is still my partner and co-owner, I’ve largely taken over the day-to-day “business”, in so much as it exists. Or I should say, the technical responsibility for said; Truth be told, I’d be incapable of keeping it in any kind of order if it weren’t for the small team of admins that selflessly and awesomely dedicate a lot of their spare time to making sure our pages and communities are friendly and entertaining places to visit. They’re my brothers and sisters, I love them, and I can’t thank them enough.

Jacobsen: What is the mission and mandate of Atheism 411?

Johnson: We seek to peacefully talk people out of their dangerous superstitions.

We see copious evidence of religion uniquely influencing the world in a negative way. The holy texts for JUST the Abrahamic religions are still used all around the world to justify slavery, the oppression and subjugation and murders of women and members of the LQBTQ+ community…

True story; because of my position with Atheism 411, people send me videos sometimes of terrible acts perpetrated in the name of gods. This is how I saw my first literal “witch burning”.

Obviously there’s no such thing as magic, so they weren’t real “witches”… but I’ve had the sickening displeasure of watching in confusion a video where people beat frightened men and women unconscious with tree branches, then cover them in branches and light it ablaze.

I probably wouldn’t have chosen to view the video, had I known what it was when I clicked. What it featured wasn’t at all clear to me, even after it started.

It wasn’t until the images were effectively seared into my brain that I realized what it was I was even watching… the violent and terrifying deaths of innocent people, because “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (Exodus 22:18 KJV)

It is my mission to peacefully talk people out of the ignorant and baseless superstitions that lead to that kind of depravity. Because the people who did that weren’t “twisting the Bible”… they were reading it literally, and applying it to reality. And that’s the same book you’ll find on the back of pews in churches around the world.

To pretend religion hasn’t earned rebuke is intellectually dishonest, to say the very least. And we have always aimed to be one of many good sources you can come to for said rebuke.

Jacobsen: Also, what is its niche? Where can people find it?

Johnson: We aim to be a reasonable voice, even though we know what we’re saying is conceptually offensive to a lot of people. Open dialog is important, sometimes especially when it’s uncomfortable. Religion is definitely one of those times.

You can find us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/Atheism411/

You can also find the videos I’ve made for our channel discussing atheist topics here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLArlD5f-q46EAEyVNvWpCKefTI6AEg_L-

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Josh.

Photo by Lucija Ros on Unsplash

The President of the Alberta Sex Positive Centre on Sex-Positive Lifestyles

Angel Sumka is the President of Albert (Canada) Sex Positive Centre. Here we talk about men.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What should men know about a sex-positive lifestyle?

Angel Sumka: All people, regardless of gender, should know that sex-positive culture (which is not a lifestyle, although there are some lifestyles that are sex-positive in nature), is about valuing the diversity of human sexuality, and recognizing that consensual sexual activity is pleasurable and healthy. I think it is important to consider the benefits to our intimate relationships in learning to have this attitude, as when we are accepting and remove shame from our thinking about bodies and sexuality, we create a safe space for our partner to talk to us about their own thoughts and desires.  

Jacobsen: How can men be better lovers?

Sumka: All people, regardless of gender, become better lovers when they communicate openly and honestly, and listen to the feedback they receive from their lover(s). There is no one true way, everybody is different, and the situation is different.  

Jacobsen: For young men, or inexperienced men at any age, how can they start to have a more sex-positive perspective and skill set?

Sumka: For all inexperienced people (I am sure you are seeing the trend here), sex positivity starts with the self.  Think about how you perceive gender and the ways in which that is helpful and not so helpful. Challenge your biases about sex and gender, think critically about what you think you know about sex and pleasure. The best way to improve your sexual skill set is to start by learning about your own body, and how to communicate your own needs, and inviting your lover(s) to do the same.

Jacobsen: What are the principles of safe sex? How often are these not practiced? What are some tips and tricks to make this easy to practice?

Sumka: The principle of safe(r) sex is that we each, as responsible individuals, can take measures to reduce the risk of harm or infection for ourselves and our partners.  This starts with communication about our risk profile (do we use condoms? Do we get tested? Are we in a high-risk category, such as i.v. drug use?), includes being regularly tested, and using appropriate barriers. Often missed is that we have the responsibility to continue to be educated about sexual risks, such as learning about the risks associated with unprotected oral sex with various types of genitals.  

Jacobsen: What are the main things with sex that men do not get, whether a homosexual or heterosexual?

Sumka: As you may have noticed, I work hard to not lump people together by gender. Society, however, does not get that consent is not optional. Anytime you go to touch another person, regardless of how casually, you should be first ensuring they are 100% ok with that touch. Same with sexual comments. Your sexuality does not negate your responsibility to be sure the person you touch wants that touch. Your gender does not excuse you from requiring consent. It always troubles me that so many of us resist the idea of enthusiastic consent. Why are we ok touching people that do not want our touch?  

Jacobsen: What forces are generally sex-negative in society?Sumka: Humans, ones that feel shame about sex and continue to ensure that others feel the same way, are the ones that drive sex-negativity.

Photo by jurien huggins on Unsplash

Q&A on the Philosophy of Economics with Dr. Alexander Douglas – Session 7

Dr. Alexander Douglas specialises in the history of philosophy and the philosophy of economics. He is a faculty member at the University of St. Andrews in the School of Philosophical, Anthropological and Film Studies. In this series, we discuss the philosophy of economics, its evolution, and how the discipline of economics should move forward in a world with increasing inequality so that it is more attuned to democracy. Previous sessions can be found here in part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6.

Scott Jacobsen: With psychology classified as a natural science by you, what are the most substantiated and broad-reaching strong conclusions of psychology relevant to economics?

Dr. Alexander Douglas: I’m no expert on this. Behavioural economics is the main area in which the findings of clinical psychology have been integrated. The major challenge attacks, as Robert Sugden puts it, the notion of ‘integrated’ preferences, according to which each agent is defined by a stable set of preferences that has to be tailored to fit her choice behaviour in all circumstances. So if I choose soup over salad today, and salad over soup tomorrow, then the assumption that I am rational compels us to redefine the objects in my preference-set. It would be irrational to prefer salad to soup and soup to salad tout court, but not, e.g., to prefer soup to salad when I’ve eaten 1000 soups in my life but salad to soup when I’ve eaten 1001 soups.

But is it rational for what I’ve eaten in the past to influence what I choose today? What about the lighting in the restaurant? What about what other people are eating? And then, of course, every soup is unique and every salad is unique: perhaps I prefer this soup to this salad, but not that soup to that salad. But then if the descriptions under which I choose become so specific, economic predictions become impossible: nothing about what I choose today will inform us about what I’ll choose tomorrow, since tomorrow everything will be slightly different.

Economists, it turns out, make a lot of implicit assumptions about what can and what can’t go rationally into what is called the ‘framing’ of a choice: past consumption is permitted to be relevant, but not seemingly extraneous factors like the day of the week on which a choice is made. But who is to say what it is rational to consider relevant to a choice? A lot of behavioural economics is about coming to terms with the importance of framing; people can be found, e.g., to choose to save 98 out of 100 lives but not to condemn two out of 100 people to death. Behavioural economics seeks to know how people typically frame their choices, and how the framing affects what they choose.

In a way, it tries to honour the ideal of ‘value-neutrality’ that underpins modern economics: it looks like a value-judgment to say that past consumption can rationally influence a choice but not the day of the week. Behavioural economists want to get by without even that value judgment. We shouldn’t say that people are irrational just because they take to be relevant what economic theorists take to be irrelevant.

Sugden believes, by the way, that even without identifying people’s preferences as such we can make some judgments about the sorts of economic institutions that they would rationally choose. I’m sceptical. He believes that people will rationally choose an economically liberal arrangement, in which free agents can engage in voluntary exchange in pursuit of a better allocation to themselves – and so they might, under that description. But how about under the sort of description Thomas Carlyle might give to such an arrangement: an unearthly ballet of higgling and haggling, conducted by little profit-and-loss philosophers; an array of pig-troughs where the pigs run across each other in unresting search of the tastiest slops, etc. etc.? Framing matters when agents ‘rationally’ choose institutions, just as much as when they ‘rationally’ choose goods. Public choice theory, I think, must also come to terms with the centrality of framing.

Jacobsen: How might, or are, these most substantiated and broad-reaching strong conclusions of psychology influence the philosophizing about economics?

Douglas: Once we bring framing into the question, I think the whole way of modeling human behaviour has to radically change. I don’t see how this can be avoided. A standard ‘utility function’ in economics will look something like this: U=f(x), where U is the overall utility or wellbeing of an agent and x is some vector of magnitudes, each representing the amount of a certain good consumed. To take framing into account, we’d need to replace x with a vector of descriptions of goods. These can’t be simple magnitudes, and so the whole project of a mathematisation of human behaviour is undermined. Could you not just expand the vector of magnitudes to have one argument for every good consumed under every possible description? You’d have one magnitude for coffee in the morning on my own, one for tea in the afternoon with a friend, one for tea in the afternoon with a work colleague, one for coffee in the evening with my beloved, etc. etc. The problem, of course, is that every good will fall under an infinite number of possible descriptions. And worse, there are descriptions of descriptions: choosing off a menu isn’t the same as choosing from a buffet, and so on.

Moreover, it is hard to see how we can get solid experimental evidence on how people frame choices. We might, using the above example, find that people will choose to accept the loss of two people but not to condemn two people to death. These framing effects matter a great deal, as our spin doctors know well. But how do we define the difference? That too is far from clear – our spin doctors know that too. I think that properly taking these subtleties into account would make economics into a qualitative, hermeneutic, ‘soft’ science – more akin to anthropology than physics.

Behavioural economists are attempting to walk the tightrope between hermeneutic anthropology and quantitative science, but I believe that the tightrope is of infinitesimal width, and sooner or later they’ll topple over onto one side.

Jacobsen: Do any of the aforementioned strong conclusions influence the treatment of time-inconsistency first considered by Spinoza and into the present with professional philosophers such as yourself?

Douglas: Spinoza has an idea of rationality that, I think, sits very badly with economics in general. For him it is irrational to discount the future at all. I might prefer one marshmallow today to two marshmallows tomorrow, but tomorrow I would, if I could, certainly not give up two marshmallows to have had one in the past. It is arbitrary to identify myself with myself at a particular moment in time. Thus he says that the rational person does not value a good differently depending on whether it is past, present, or future (Ethics 4p62).

When modern economists talk about time inconsistency, they mean something much weaker than this. They’re talking about a time-discounting function that is hyberbolic, or generally non-linear. Only a few concede that time-discounting, in general, is irrational; Joan Robinson calls it ‘an irrational or weak-minded failure to value the future consumption now at what its true worth … will turn out to be’ (The Accumulation of Capital, 394).

If agents didn’t engage in time-discounting, economic explanations of interest rate, profit, and so on wouldn’t work. Economists certainly don’t want to say that economic equilibrium depends on profound irrationality in the agents involved. In fact, I think you could argue that their equilibriums depend on forced labour or coercive extraction of some sort. If I take on a loan today, my future self will have to work to pay the interest. He gets no direct benefit from what happened in the past. Or, even if he does, he is unlikely to set the relative value of the past benefit as high as his past self did. But he simply wasn’t consulted in the decision. My past self can be paternalistic or exploitative towards my future selves, but, in any case, there is a dictatorship of the present. Economists treat as coercive a situation in which the preferences of a select group determine the outcomes for everyone. But that is exactly what happens when, in their models, agents at time zero determine what all their future selves will pay and receive, by negotiating with other agents present at time zero.

We could, of course, identify all the future selves of an agent with that agent at time zero, but then we would have an agent with deeply inconsistent preferences. Again: today I prefer to give up the promise of two marshmallows tomorrow for one today, but tomorrow I certainly wouldn’t give up two marshmallows in order to have had one in the past. So a single diachronic agent with a nonzero time-discounting rate would have preferences that are not just ‘inconsistent’ in some weak sense but plainly contradictory.

This isn’t only an academic exercise; it gets to the heart of why markets can’t plan – an issue rendered very palpable in our day by the climate crisis. James Galbraith points this out somewhere in The Predator State. You shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that futures markets allow markets to plan: what they allow is for present agents to divide up the spoils of what they plunder from future generations by contractual obligations or irreversible natural processes. In this way, as in many others, Spinoza has never been more relevant.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Alex.

Photo by Luis Quintero on Unsplash

Acharya Salil Kumar talks about the horoscope of Indian Political Parties

0

Renowned Astrologer Acharya Salil Kumar talks to News Intervention about the horoscope of Indian Political Parties and how they will fare in the upcoming General Elections 2019.

Renowned Astrologer Salil Kumar on Narendra Modi’s PM chances after 2019 General Elections

1

Renowned Astrologer Acharya Salil Kumar talks to News Intervention. He describes why and how Astrological Calculations say that Narendra Modi will continue as the Prime Minister of India.