It’s David Brin’s Earth; we’re just living in it

Climate change, science fiction
Published on

Yesterday Norway officially opened what’s been called a “Noah’s ark for plant life”:

Dug deep into the permafrost of a remote Arctic mountain, the “doomsday” vault is designed by Norway to protect the world’s seeds from global catastrophe.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a backup to the world’s 1,400 other seed banks, was to be officially inaugurated in a ceremony Tuesday on the northern rim of civilization attended by about 150 guests from 33 countries.

The frozen vault has the capacity to store 4.5 million seed samples from around the globe, shielding them from climate change, war, natural disasters and other threats.

For those of us that have read David Brin’s 1990 novel Earth, this sounds eerily similar to the “Arks” he used as part of the background, wildlife refuges for animal and plant species that were dying out in the wild. Brin set his novel in 2038, but reality seems impatient. Brin must’ve been particularly well inspired when he wrote Earth, as these arks are far from the first “prediction” from it that have come true, as the Wikipedia article linked to above shows. What’s more, Brin put them together into a coherent vision of the near-future that to some extent seems to be coming true. Not in all particulars of course; science fiction cannot predict the future after all.

Brin wrote his novel at a time when, like now, environmental awareness was high. Acid rain had been known since the early eighties at least, while the disappearance of the ozone layer was common knowledge at the end of the decade and was finally acted upon then, decades after it first had been discovered, while global warming and the disappearance of biodiversity were just entering public awareness. That was a time when a fair few science fiction novels, unlike now, tackled climate change.

Coincindentally there’s a recent thread on torque Control on why it is that so few sf authors currently seem unwilling or unable to tackle climate change other than as background fodder. Perhaps because most of us, other than hardcore denialists, seem convinced it is happening and it can’t be stopped only migitated. Climate change as part of the consensus future, too big to ignore but also too immediate to make writing about it fun perhaps, unlike fifteen-twenty years ago.

Further thoughts on Cuba

socialism, US foreign policy, wingnuts
Published on

(I posted the comment below first at Unfogged but it was too good to just waste on those ingrates.)

What you need to keep in mind when judging Castro is that the man has stayed in power for almost fifty years and is only giving it up because his health has detoriated. This despite enormous odds against him, what with a certain superpower not a hundred miles away not liking him much. Unlike the Eastern European socalled socialist countries, his regime did not crumble once Soviet support was withdrawn, nor did Cuba go the Chinese or Vietnamese way of economic but not political freedom. At the same time his regime has been repressive, but it hasn’t engaged in mass murdering opponents in the same way US backed dictatorships in central America have done, or even (afaik) in the kind of repression that China went through.

That suggests to me that the reason Castro has survived so long in the face of so much difficulty is because the Cuban people want him to and believe he is their legitamite leader, despite some of the nastier features of the system he built.

What might help with this acceptance is the example of neighbouring countries like Haiti, with its history of brutal dictatorships, short periods of democracy undermined by Uncle Sam and civil wars/chaos…

Cuba is poor, but doesn’t have the extreme inequality of many Latin American countries, has free healthcare and school system for all its citizens annd has been able to go its own way despite superpower pressure. Would Cubans want to give up these hardwon achievements in return for the often dubious freedoms of liberal democracy as defined by US foreign policy?

Cuba and the American wingnut

socialism, US foreign policy, wingnuts
Published on

Chris Bertram was a bit naughty on Crooked Timber last Tuesday, putting up a post celebrating Cuba under Castro, or rather acknowledging that Castro was not quite the mad dictator of American propaganda. The result? A thread of over 300 comments filled with decent leftists and wingnuts denouncing him for his soft stance on tyranny. Ironically in the process they showed why Chris was right in saying that anti-Castro fanatics hate Castro less for his human rights abuses than for the simple fact that he hasn’t knuckled under, that half a century of US pressure has not been able to make Cuba get in line.

It also shows how dangerous it can be to look at human rights issues without taking into account the context in which they are reported. The best example of which has been the War on Iraq, in the runup to which claims about Saddam’s awful regime were plastered all over the media, some true, others not, all of which in the end served not to end those abuses and bring the perpetrators to justice. Instead it helped to justify the invasion and subsequent occupation, which has so far has already killed a million Iraqis.

It’s not hard to see that American concerns about Cuban human rights abuses serve the same goal. It’s also not hard to see that undemocratic as it might be, Cuba would be much worse off under any US-led attempt to “democratise” it, as the example of Haiti should make clear. Democracies can commit massive crimes as well and worse, US/EU-approved and imposed “liberal democracies” usually shaft their own populations. Would you rather have Cuban or US style healthcare?

If we denounce Cuban abuses we might feel good about ourselves, but this will not end them and worse may help create a worse situation. Only the Cuban people can liberate themselves.

Amsterdam bans dirty cars

Amsterdam, Environment
Published on

You may not have noticed if you visited our fair city from London or New York, but Amsterdam is incredibly dirty and polluted. Just run your finger round the edge of any building in the centre of town (you know, like your mother proably used to do with the top of the cupboard) and it comes away covered in a mixture of dirt, dust and pollution. The main cause of this? Traffic. Amsterdam is a small, compact city with a lot of offices and a lot of people commuting into the city by car. For several years now air quality in the city has worsened, to the effect that living here can actually reduce your life expectancy.

No wonder than that the city council has been looking for ways to improve air quality, especially since several prestigious building projects had to be suspended last year because of pollution concerns. Yesterday the council presented the measures it wants to take and it seems they’re going for the carrot and stick method, by rewarding owners of more environmentally friendly cars and punishing polluters. From the end of next year the most polluting classes of car will be banned from Amsterdam. Any cars older than 1992 will be banned, while diesel cars without smog filters will also be banned. However, if your car is clean, your arking license will be cheaper. At the same time the council is allocating more money for bicycle lanes and to promote biking in general.

Great news, though personally I wouldn’t mind seeing the car disappear completely, at least from the centre of town. The old Medieval heart of the city just isn’t built for cars.

National Rock

economic crisis, libertarianism
Published on

So Northern Rock is to be nationalised, but as the Darling treasurer hurriedly explained, only as a temporary measure and only as a last resort; wouldn’t want to do anything that frightened business, now would we? The Tories immediately started howling about how this was all an embarassement and a prelude to a new winter of discontent, with the mass strikes and the power cuts and the dead piling up in the streets and all that, while Northern Rock shareholders immediately started making noises about sueing because of course no matter what happens they deserve their pound of flesh. For the rest of the financial sector, however much they may not like the dreaded n-word, they seem happy to let it happen and have the tax payer take responsibility for their failings.

For all the angst surrounding it, this nationalisation really is only business as usual, as over eleven years of New Labour it has always been willing to guarantee private profits with public money, although it’s usually done through less visible methods like private finance initiatives. Nationalisation happened only because Darling was unable to get rid of Norther Rock any other way, had spent too much money propping it up already to sweep the losses under the carpet and the crisis was too high profile to resolve through the usual sleight of hand. Not just the opposition and the voters were watching, so was the EU competition commissioner. Any hint of preferential treatment and the EU would’ve pounced. Since nobody was stupid enough to buy an almost bankrupt company with a multiple billion pound debt, nationalisation was the only option remaining.

But while nationalisation should not be seen as some huge blow for socialism, the mere fact that the government actually wants to go through with it is a significant break with the past. until now the profit principle, privetisation and marketisation as the solutions to all ills had been sacrosanct. To abandon them in the case of Northern Rocks means things are changing. It fits in a larger pan-European trend of abandonment of free market principles, as even the Dutch government has now admitted privetisation of public services has largely failed to bring the benefits that they promised it would. Plans to sell off Schiphol have been halted and the threatened liberalisation of public transport in the four biggest cities has fallen through. The finance minister has even gone so far as to say that privetisation of remaining state run companies would be stopped entirely, unless there were compelling reasons otherwise.

This u-turn is not to be explained by a change in ideology on the part of the British or Dutch governments, but simply because both can see the threatening recession looming at the horizon and both know that this recession is likely to be severe. Contrary to free market ideology, business has always relied on the government to shelter them through these storms.