This topic is one that political conservatives worry about a lot. Every time California experiences a recession or the mildest growth hiccup, and every time a high-profile business leaves California for another state conservatives say it’s all because of over-regulation. To me at least, their rhetoric often sounds ideological and a cynical cover for corporate self-interest.
But, not so fast. I think there’s something to this topic, even after discounting for rhetorical excess and partisanship. California has a very dense web of environmental regulations. They affect every aspect of living and doing business in our state. No one serious is saying we should not have clean air and water, safe consumer products, and wetlands. But, perhaps Californians can be said to be over-regulated, especially if “over-regulated” is carefully and specifically defined.
One definition of excessive govt regulation involves marginal costs exceeding marginal benefits. I will explain this basic concept briefly in my opening framing remarks on Monday night. But, basically, the more stringent an environmental regulation is, the higher the costs of implementing it and (probably) the smaller the additional increment of benefits it provides. You can think of the marginal costs and benefit curves as being non-linear to reflect this. At some point the lines cross, and the reg does more harm than good.
This sounds simple, but it’s very hard to compare costs to benefits in a way that gives us confidence we have assessed them right. C/B analysis is not my field, nor is environmental policy. But I’ll explain this basic idea within the level of my competency.
A second type f over-regulation involves the bureaucratic process. The enviro law permitting process in California can be very time consuming and expensive, especially for big projects that require the full Monty environmental impact studies. There is a lot of talk right now in Sacramento about streamlining the processes. Process is one of those boring-but-really-important aspects of government that separates good government from bad, even if it’s hard for non-experts to discuss and gets very little media attention.
A third type is more like mis-regulation. Like the rest of government, enviro laws/regs can and do get manipulated by private interests for their own benefit, usually at the expense of their public good. As the links explain, below, the third party litigation allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is vulnerable to this. (As is our initiative process, that big biz uses to bypass enviro laws they don’t like.)
Huge battles are brewing all over the country over the future of our environment and climate. As always, Californians will be manning the front lines. At present, the Republican Party has virtually abandoned the environmentalism it used to embrace. That can’t last forever, though. Even if it does, it puts the Democrats in danger. Progressives risk getting too smug about their environmentalism and ceasing to listen to skeptics, businesses, and other good people who bear the brunt of good (and sometimes bad) policy.
I think an honest discussion of the limits of CA’s environmental regulation is very much needed now.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What are CA’s main environmental laws? How do they get enforced?
- What is “over-regulation?” Can it have more than one meaning? How can we measure its extent and distinguish valid complaints from false/cynical ones?
- If we’re over-regulated environmentally, how did we get that way? How can we safely reverse any over-regulation?
- New areas: What do we think of the latest CA enviro laws addressing climate change, energy use, toxins, and groundwater?
- Is “technology forcing” regulation a good idea? How do we know if we’re overdoing it?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
[Update – Climate Policy – CA is moving very aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a (very supportive) description of what’s bee done, and here is what to expect in the near future.]
Are we environmentally over-regulated?
- Conservative POV: Yes. CA is “wildly” overregulated and it greatly harms the economy. Recommended.
- Jerry Brown sorta/kinda agrees we’re over-regulated.
- Progressive POV: Baloney. CA consistently creates more new businesses and jobs than other states. Regulations are not killing our economy. More here. Recommended.
- Still, problems exist:
- Arguably, CA enviro regulation has grown too ideological. Recommended.
- CEQA I: The law maybe makes it too easy to sabotage a new business or development project. More details in this 2012 NYT article saying many Dems want to overhaul CEQA enforcement process.
- CEQA II: Big biz is using our referendum process to bypass CEQA.
Next Week July 18: Are native-American interests being neglected?
Despite terrorist attacks and other dramatic day-today events, both life and the business of public policy go on. Zelekha suggested we talk about the future of space exploration, with an emphasis on one of its more intriguing (if highly speculative) aspects: The potential for human colonization of space. With any luck, we will have a very knowledgeable guest speaker on the topic.
NASA has been busy exploring Mars and other parts of our solar system in the past few years, and other nations plan to start doing so. A NASA manned mission to Mars is planned for the 2030s as part of a comprehensive plan for future space exploration that the agency issued just last month. A private sector consortium wants to send an
80-person 80,000 [tomato, tomahto] colony to Mars within a few decades, although its plans have been widely panned.
We may have a guest speaker for Monday who is very knowledgeable on space exploration. Robert Lock, Carl’s son and my old friend from high school, is an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. Robert has worked on various deep space probe missions at JPL for decades. He will be able to fill us in on NASA’s future plans for exploring the solar system, as well as give us a basic tutorial on what makes colonizing space so difficult and expensive a proposition.
Carl and I are still trying to secure Rob’s presence on Monday. In the meantime, here are some basic articles on the space program and the promise and peril of colonization.
Discussion Questions –
- WHAT: What is planned in space exploration in the coming decades? By NASA? By the U.S. private sector? By other countries?
- Is anybody seriously studying colonizing space in our lifetimes?
- What has the research concluded?
- WHY: Why try to colonize space, anyway? Pros and cons.
- HOW: What are the big technical barriers to colonization? The biggest cost and political barriers?
- NASA’s future in general.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Our 2011 mtg on space exploration focused on Obama space plan, especially privatizing parts of it.
- General articles on colonizing space: Recommended.
- Why colonize space at all?
- NASA’s Mars plan of 10/15:
- Private sector plans to go to/colonize Mars.
Next Week: Is the United Nations Worth Having?
Ali’s idea finally arrives! I imagine our immigrant from Iraq member suggested this topic because he has been shocked to learn how ignorant Americans are about science and how often those beliefs influence public policy.
Me, too. Public ignorance of basic scientific principles and facts is kind of legendary in this country. We have touched on it tangentially before, but not really since 2011 meetings on anti-intellectualism and the politicizing of science. We’re going to debate my pet peeve, political ignorance, on September 28. So, our summer of ignorance will be a long one.
As for science, we all can name a few big areas of illiteracy that make it into the news on a regular basis because it they impact politics and public affairs.
- Climate change denialism.
- Genetically-modified organism (GMO) food.
There are others. I’ve met people in recent years that believe the government and/or corporations are dispersing harmful chemicals nationwide in a deliberate effort to increase the rate of disease. Pro-life advocates believe abortions cause breast cancer and the pill is an abortifacient (the AMA and American Cancer Society disagree). Bruce, our neurologist, has mentioned before that a lot of his patients want only “natural” treatments, rather than those icky pharmaceuticals with their industry-bought scientific studies. Abstinence only education. Fluoridated water.
Anyway, I think we should start off on Monday by getting some facts of our own. I’m going to do some research on how many Americans actually believe the major scientific fallacies I listed above. Then, we can debate what to me are the really important questions, like who encourages people to believe this stuff, and why do some anti-science views end up influencing public policy while others do not? Do “both sides really do it” equally?
Discussion Questions –
- How many Americans hold flat-earthly wrong views on the major scientific questions of our day? Has it gotten worse or better in recent decades?
- How do these opinions break down by Right and Left, politically? When is ideology/partisanship a driver of ignorance and when is it just coincidence?
- Who in positions of influence is abetting this scientific illiteracy? Politicians? Religious authorities? News Media? Bogus think tanks? People making money off the ignorance?
- Who cares? Which anti-sci views are hurting us all by influencing public policy (e.g., climate) or third parties (e.g., anti-vaccine)
- What can be done? Better science education? Better news media? Less craven politicians?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- WHY: Must-reads.
- WHEN IT MATTERS:
- Anti-science views become “political” when they becomes an agenda item for the party in question. Recommended.
- Anti-science beliefs threaten American democracy! (Recommended but long, Scientific American,).
- WHICH SIDE IS WORSE?
- IDEA: Wouldn’t you love to see this?
Next Week: Wrongful Criminal Convictions.
We have another, excellent learn-from-Bruce meeting this week. Our resident neurologist will lecture on what science knows about the human consciousness. How close is science to knowing whether our self-awareness/sentience is an epiphenomenon of the physical structures and functioning of our brains? Is there any room left for an incorporeal, human consciousness, either divinely-created or in some other way non-physical?
To most of us secular types, the answer is clear: Anything we don’t know about the human mind we someday will know. Everything that exists in our consciousness has a physical analog, evolving naturally. Evolution invented us and then we invented “us.” Many religious people seethe at this POV, considering it arrogant and, at most, unprovable. Hopefully, Bruce can help us seculars better understand what it is we’re so damned sure about.
I – whoever and whatever that is – am really looking forward to this one. Below are a few inks of general interest googled by me. I will add in any readings Bruce suggests later this weekend.
There is a small chance I won’t be there again. But, again, not for lack of interest.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Theories of how the brain works.
- The “hard problem” of consciousness.
- Higher order theories of consciousness.
- Optogenetics: Controlling the brain with light (5- minute video).
- A problem: Are the results of neuroscientific studies unreliable?
- Behavioral neuroscience (Wiki explains what it is).
From me (they just seemed a little easier)
Next Week: Nuclear Negotiating with Iran.
We’ve previously discussed how 21st century technological breakthroughs might alter the future of work in the Unit4ed States. In November 2013 I had us devote an evening to the “Secular Stagnation” theory. This is the idea that we are entering a long (multi-decade)period of slower economic growth, flat wages and stalled prosperity.
The Great Stagnation, it is alleged, will be caused in part because the next few decades are unlikely to witness any truly transformative technological breakthroughs. The big, basic technological innovations that powered us into the modern world, like the railroad and telephone, are behind us now this theory says. And, sometimes in human history decades can go by between major leaps in technology.
This week, we’re going to look at kind of the opposite argument, and its possible downside. What if artificial intelligence and other automation technologies finally reach the stage where they can replace a huge share of the jobs people now hold? What if robots come to replace human workers on a very large scale, and not just for low-skilled, repetitive tasks, but thinking and problem solving jobs? What will our kids do for a living and how will it transform society?
- What is the evidence that the “New Machine Age is dawning? Is it looming, or bunk?
- Who will it dawn for? Which industries and which jobs?
- Who will be made better off and worse off? What are the trade-offs?
- Can/should anything be done to hasten or prevent this transformation?
- If it comes, what kind of government policies will be appropriate? Libertarian policies (see links) or more social insurance and government support for workers?
- History: What can we learn from past instances of revolutionary labor-saving technology? Please answer without using the word Luddite.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Our 2013 meeting on the “Great Stagnation.” Links included Krugman on the basic concept + this much more detailed explanation. It was about much more than slowing technological innovation.
The Robots are coming –
- Machines soon will take many more of our jobs – and maybe be a Libertarian’s dream come true. A must-read.
- Another optimistic view (Wired Magazine).
- Robots are not the problem. Bad (conservative) public policies are. Recommended.
- Yeah, they are. But, on the bright side, maybe we’ll start protecting American jobs when robots start replacing highly-paid white collar jobs, since even most elites would recoil from a libertarian “paradise.” Recommended.
Next Week: The Causes and Sociology of Modern Wars.
Bruce will moderate this meeting. I think it is a good topic for integrating science with our personal experiences. So many libraries have been filled with books on what intelligence is that I wasn’t sure where t start. So, some of the links below are via Bruce and others are ones I found. My impression is that Bruce is particularly interested in some theories of concerning intelligence that some of us might find controversial. Politics is everywhere.
I’ll see you all Monday night
- What are the major theories of intelligence? Are there different kinds of intelligence? Or, is there just one intelligence (a G factor) and we see different aspects of it?
- How do they measure intelligence? How accurate are the tests? What are they really measuring?
- Variability: How does intelligence vary between people and across cultures? Why do IQ levels in a society tend to rise over time (the Flynn effect)?
- How does intelligence change as we age?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Major theories of what intelligence is. Shorter description here. Recommended overviews.
- Latest research findings, via Bruce. Just read the italicized summary of key findings in the first few paragraphs.
- More on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, via Bruce
- More on the “G factor” in a 20-min. video, by coiner of the term, Arthur Jensen.
- The Flynn effect: Recommended
- Does intelligence determine success in life? The Terman study.
- Bell Curve: The IQ theories of Charles Murray (Bruce likes him, links are mine)
- POST-MTG UPDATE: John M. wanted me to add these perspectives on Murray:
- How the Media gave undeserved credibility to Murray’s “racist and pseudo-scientific book.”
- John’s own investigation that aired on ABC News of shady sources behind the evidence that Murray used in his book.
- A Slate Magazine critique of The Bell Curve.
- Does intelligence peak around age 50? Me not like.
Next Week: Bill Clinton: How good a president was he?
Ho, ho, ho! Just in time for Christmas, I thought we would tackle a question that probably is on the minds of one minority of Americans this time of year: Atheists. Will atheism, or at least agnosticism, ever become common in this country? How about just socially acceptable? The usual argument that it will be is pretty familiar to you, I imagine. As societies get richer and better-educated, they tend to grow more secular. To most atheists, this is because the need for supernatural answers to life’s questions declines as people get more ecucated and feel more in control of their lives, so the need for religion declines along with it.
Maybe. But, doesn’t this kind of assume not only that religion is bunk – that there is nothing out there that calls to us, we just imagine it – but also that religion’s only appeal to us is magical? What about its ethical appeal? And, if the relationship between wealth, education, and religion is so straightforward, then how do we explain why the United States is still so highly relgious compared to other rich countries? It sounds like we need to ask some other questions here.
DIUSCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Why are people religious in the first place? What is the difference between being religious and being spiritual?
- What causes societies to grown less religious over time? How do they change as a result?
- Why have Americans resisted the secularization that has overtaken other countries? Is it cultural factors? Economics? Inertia? Events? Why are Millennials so much less religiousa than older generations, even than the Baby Boomers?
- What would we gain and lose by secularizing like Europe has? Will it realy be all good? Will we grow even more socially and politically-divided than we are now?
LINKS (only a few, due to my computer crash)
- [UPDATE: I know it’s late, but please read these two fascinating explanations of what atheists can do to help their own cause with the public that despises them:
- Atheism is growing in the United States. Worldwide, it is now the third-largest “faith,” so to speak.
- But, American atheists still are a despised minority – and absent from society in many parts of the country. They are among the least liked religious groups.
- In a 2012 XMAS meeting, we discussed whether atheists and religious folk will ever get along. My post had some thoughtful links, IMO. Recommended.
- Religious people DO tend to be less intelligent than non-religious people. But, maybe we should not read too much into that. Recommended.
- OTOH, education makes people less religous.
Next Week: Should Euthenasia Be Legal?