Industry and Climate Change

Tonight, Tue Jan 28, 2014, the Concord Area Humanists had their Small Discussion Group at the Concord Library. The goal at the meeting was to rank several issues for future discussions. Although there was much discussion on many topics, I’m not sure that it led to any ranking.

One of the topics covered by Pam and others was the concern of Climate Change and getting businesses to recognize that it is in their financial and economic interest to be concerned and to act accordingly. When I got home, I had received a Twitter message from Jeffrey Sachs, a chief economist at the United Nations, asking us to read an article in the New York Times, Jan 23, 2014, entitled “Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change”.

Both Coca Cola and Nike have suffered from problems in their upstream suppliers of water in Asia due to extreme weather conditions. The article goes on to say how corporate leaders and politicians are meeting now in Davos to discuss the threat of climate change where “The emphasis will be less about saving polar bears and more about promoting economic self-interest.” The article ends by stating several conservative economists who are in agreement that “there will be agriculture and economic effects”.

Included within the body of the New York Times article was a link to The World Bank News with an article “World Bank Group President: This is the Year of Climate Action”.

Instead of re-capping, the New York Times article, I am going to just lift several portions for those who don’t want to read the entire article. The following are quotes:

Coca-Cola has always been more focused on its economic bottom line than on global warming, but when the company lost a lucrative operating license in India because of a serious water shortage there in 2004, things began to change.

Today, after a decade of increasing damage to Coke’s balance sheet as global droughts dried up the water needed to produce its soda, the company has embraced the idea of climate change as an economically disruptive force.

Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the impact of climate change.

In Philadelphia this month, the American Economic Association inaugurated its new president, William D. Nordhaus, a Yale economist and one of the world’s foremost experts on the economics of climate change.

“There is clearly a growing recognition of this in the broader academic economic community,” said Mr. Nordhaus, who has spent decades researching the economic impacts of both climate change and of policies intended to mitigate climate change.

In Washington, the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, has put climate change at the center of the bank’s mission, citing global warming as the chief contributor to rising global poverty rates and falling G.D.P.’s in developing nations. In Europe, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based club of 34 industrialized nations, has begun to warn of the steep costs of increased carbon pollution.

Nike has already reported the impact of climate change on water supplies on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Both Nike and Coke are responding internally: Coke uses water-conservation technologies and Nike is using more synthetic material that is less dependent on weather conditions. At Davos and in global capitals, the companies are also lobbying governments to enact environmentally friendly policies.

In the United States, the rich can afford to weigh in. The California hedge-fund billionaire Thomas F. Steyer, who has used millions from his own fortune to support political candidates who favor climate policy, is working with Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration, to commission an economic study on the financial risks associated with climate change. The study, titled “Risky Business,” aims to assess the potential impacts of climate change by region and by sector across the American economy.

“This study is about one thing, the economics,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview, adding that “business leaders are not adequately focused on the economic impact of climate change.”

Also consulting on the “Risky Business” report is Robert E. Rubin, a former Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. “There are a lot of really significant, monumental issues facing the global economy, but this supersedes all else,” Mr. Rubin said in an interview. “To make meaningful headway in the economics community and the business community, you’ve got to make it concrete.”

Last fall, the governments of seven countries — Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, South Korea, Norway, Sweden and Britain — created the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate and jointly began another study on how governments and businesses can address climate risks to better achieve economic growth. That study and the one commissioned by Mr. Steyer and others are being published this fall, just before a major United Nations meeting on climate change.

Although many Republicans oppose the idea of a price or tax on carbon pollution, some conservative economists endorse the idea. Among them are Arthur B. Laffer, senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and an economic adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican.

“There’s no question that if we get substantial changes in atmospheric temperatures, as all the evidence suggests, that it’s going to contribute to sea-level rise,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There will be agriculture and economic effects — it’s inescapable.” He added, “I’d be shocked if people supported anything other than a carbon tax — that’s how economists think about it.”

David Kimball

Secularism is NOT Anti-Religious

In my last post on Non-Arrogant Humanism, I referred to a saying that Roy Speckhardt made to the effect that we can disagree with theists and still be respectful, but we cannot ridicule them and still be respectful.  It was also brought out that in many areas we want to work with groups – even though they are theists.

Secularism is a way of governing and is not a religious or philosophical belief about beliefs.  Secularism, as I am using it here, only means that the government will govern with laws and policies and enforcement without regard to any one or more religions.  The opposite of Secularism is Pluralism where the government tries to govern while accommodating one or more religions.  Over the past many years we have seen the disastrous results of trying to govern under Pluralism as the United States has equated Christianity with Democracy, and with Capitalism. 

When we look at the countries in Europe, we often see Secularism at work.  Austria is about 75% Catholic.  But not necessarily practicing Catholic as they are considered Catholic if they were baptized as Catholics as infants and not necessarily if they attend mass regularly.  Yet the Catholic faith has little influence in the Austrian government.  The same is true with the Protestant countries of Sweden, Denmark, etc.  These religions are not outlawed, or censored, or kept from believing in their faiths at all.  However the churches have little if any influence in the governance of these countries.

Great Britain is experiencing a great problem trying to accommodate to Sharia Law.  Although there are no stonings in Great Britain, there are Sharia courts set up to handle special issues involving finance and divorce.  And while there have been little attempt to instill Sharia Law here in the United States, there has been a great deal of opposition from some of the political Fundamentalists.  The problem with these Fundamentalist arguments against Sharia Law in the US is not that we should not accommodate to these laws, but they often want the US to accommodate and institute Judeo-Christian laws instead.  They would be closer to the truth if they were trying to remove all religious influences from our governance – not just Muslim.

Secularism assures that all laws will not favor any one or more religion and won’t be passed or imposed because of religious reasons.  The reasons for the laws should be because they are best for society as a whole.  Some laws may coincide or complement religious beliefs, but religious beliefs should not be the reason for these laws.  For instance:  marriage.  There should not be any religious reasons for any marriage laws.  Society may decide that monogamy is the best policy, but it should be because it is deemed best for society – not because it is deemed best for any particular religion.  The same is true with gay marriage.  Society should do what is best for society, including the GLBT community, and not disallow it because of any religious reasons.

And it is because of this that we as Humanists should support and promote Secularism not as anti-theists but because it is the best way to govern.  And with that as a principle, we should realize that much of our advocacy work should be done in collaboration with other religious organizations.  Instead of taking a paradigm of competition and control, we should be operating within the paradigm of collaboration and cooperation.

For instance:  Government sponsored Nativity scenes.  We do not have to come across as anti-Christian when we insist that government monies not be spent on religious based decorations.  Instead, we should be joining with Muslims and Jews to press the point that government monies should not be spent promoting any religion.  That is promoting Secularism and is not being anti-religious. 

Another instance:  Health care.  In the latest Secular Coalition for America’s newsletter, it states that the 2014 Budget Bill restores only half of the funds for “medically accurate, comprehensive sex education” while the Competitive Abstinence Education grant program was fully restored.  Secularists would say that the funding should not be disproportionate according to religious beliefs.  Also, Obamacare provisions for birth control should not be restricted just because of religious beliefs or religious institutions.  These governance issues should be determined strictly because of what is deemed best for society and not what is best for any particular religion or church. 

The Secular Coalition for America should not be comprised only of non-theistic organizations like Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.  Just as Jewish and Muslim groups should be joining the Secular Coalition for America in fighting against Christian themed government decorations, so too many of the main stream religious groups should want to join in seeing that Health Care issues are handled in a Secular fashion. 

And that means that we as Humanists must be reaching out to these churches and religious organizations which are also desirous to see that good governance is free of all religions.  We need to base our collaborations on our shared values and not on the differences of our beliefs.  Secularism is not a religious concept, so it should not be allowed to appear as being anti-religious. 

Non Arrogant Humanism

 In the Latest Humanist Network News, there is a link to an article by Roy Speckhardt entitled “An End to Arrogant Atheism” which was originally published in the Huffington Post, Religion section dated January 23, 2014.  Roy is the Executive Director of the American Humanist Association.  It is an excellent article about how we Humanists, atheists, or whatever do not do ourselves any favors by denigrating people who believe in their faith.  He quotes Richard Dawkins as saying “religion is an organized license to be acceptably stupid” and Dawkins also said that the combined number of Nobel winners won by Muslims was smaller than all the winners in one English university. 

Speckhardt went on to say that when we make statements like these, we come across as elitists and tend to turn off the people we should be trying to influence.  He says, “The problem with arrogant atheism is that it scares away those who would otherwise self-identify as atheists, and it prevents us from building the alliances we need in order to achieve our aims.”  Speckhardt pushes the point that we can respectfully disagree, but we cannot respectfully ridicule.  And when we disagree, we should do it in a way that opens their minds rather than closes it.

I wrote a Comment underneath his article which I will copy here.

“I agree mostly. However, when the author says, "While Dawkins certainly has a valid point regarding mainstream religion's frequent opposition to critical thinking and empiricism...", he is in error. Main stream religion, like most Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, etc. are not the culprits of this behavior as much as the Fundamentalists are. Although the non-critical thinking Fundamentalists make the most noise, we err when we label that as "religion" or "main stream religion".

And yes, we should collaborate with all the religions rather than view it as a competition. We should be joining with Muslims and Jews not to have Nativity Scenes and passages from the New Testament. We should be working with all the religions to insure a secular government - a government which does not try to accommodate to any specific religion. Pluralism has shown that it cannot work. And the only way we will "evolve" to secularism is through the coordinated efforts of all (or at least many/most) religions. So any attempt to create an "us versus them" scenario, as Dawkins and other arrogant atheists do, is in error and counter-productive.

David Kimball

PASSION

 Last night the Concord Area Humanists held their monthly meeting with Ellery Schempp giving a presentation on the 50^th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling outlawing Bible reading in the public schools (Abingdon vs Schempp).  During the Q and A session that followed, the question was raised why so much more money is given to spend by the irrational groups (including Fundamentalists) attempting to force their beliefs into our society.  The disparity is amazing.  There was recently a study by the University of Southern California showing that three-quarters of all American giving goes to religion and religiously affiliated organizations.  Of course, most of this money goes to the administration costs of the religious organization as a government subsidy as a tax break.  Having been raised as a Fundamentalist, I pondered this conundrum on my drive home.

The first thought that came to my mind was one word:  Passion.  Fundamentalists are known for their passion much more than for their rational approach to issues.  When I think of the televangelists, or the Charismatics, or Jonathon Edward’s blazing sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, I think of very fiery emotional and passionate behaviors.  Christianity Today, a major Fundamentalist organization, says that Pentacostalism is the fastest growing Christian movement in the world including the United States and Europe.  And I realized that this wasn’t restricted to religions as I considered the demagogues in the Tea Party, and of course one of the greatest demagogues in recent history, Hitler.  They all appeal to the emotions, especially the emotion of fear, much more than the rational part of the mind.  If I could coin (bitcoin?) a phrase it would be “If I can instill passion in a person, I can motivate them to do anything.”  (I should also say that this includes passionate lovers who have been led astray for irrational reasons.)

But while this might explain the effect, it does not really explain the cause.  To delve into the cause, I want to paint a picture of a model of the mind.  Our mind consists of a rational mind (prefrontal lobes) and also an irrational part.  The term “irrational brain” is a poor choice of words because it has a negative effect on many people – unwarranted as it is.  This irrational brain includes our intuitive mind, our creative mind, and, most important for this essay, our emotional reactions (amygdala).  Although it is a simplification, I’m just going to discuss these two parts of the brain and refer to them as the rational mind and the emotional mind.

The rational mind uses the language of logic, science, math, etc to determine what is True or what is Not True – Aristotelian Logic.  It has a binary function where something is either one or the other, True or False, Right or Wrong.  This leads us to knowledge which is why we have such the knowledge explosion that we have today – especially in science and neurobiology - the study of the mind through scientific observations using fMRI’s (functional MRI’s).  However the emotional mind uses the language of metaphor and stories to discern Truth.  There can be many Truths so it is not binary like the rational mind.  Some of these Truths may even be opposite of other Truths.  Like a pizza divided into slices.  Each slice points to the center, the Truth, but some may be opposite from another or exist alongside of other Truths.  These Truths lead to wisdom. 

The emotional mind is where we find our “Fight or Flight” response and our whole spectrum of emotional reactions.  This emotional mind is responsible for emotional reactions rather than emotional states like joy, happiness, etc.  And so the language is story and metaphor which will cause these emotional reactions.  There is little emotional reaction to the language of the rational mind.  The rational mind is the main organ that separates humans from other animals and is responsible for recognizing and identifying the emotional reactions and then processing them and then directing our behavior accordingly.  So a person with a highly developed rational mind will control their emotional reactions much more than a person with a lesser developed rational mind.  The rational mind does not deny or dismiss the emotional reactions, but it recognizes these reactions, processes them in the frontal lobes, and then determines the best behavior.  An emotional person will only react without reflecting.

So a person who is much more emotionally driven will react emotionally without reflecting and will experience and react to passion much more than a rationally driven person.  An emotionally driven person will also desire a hierarchy structure of society where there is someone telling them what to do and how to do it.  A rationally driven person will think independently and will often reject the authority of a hierarchy.  So it becomes easy for a charismatic leader to inflame a congregation and then to direct their actions such as how to donate their money.  Imagine a person addressing a Humanist group and requiring them to pay 10% of their income (tithe) to the local organization, and then to pay more money (offerings) to outside charitable causes. 

(The following is merely a mind game and not meant to say what is Truth, to say nothing about what is True.)  An interesting metaphor might be Freud’s concept of Displacement.  (Freud is much better understood as metaphor rather than strict science.)  Here he posits that if one emotion is squeezed, or controlled, then it will appear elsewhere in an out-of-proportion way in another emotional scene.  Like a balloon where you squeeze one part of it, and the balloon pops out on another side.  If Fundamentalists are sexually repressed, then it might be natural to have them express their passions in an exaggerated manner about other things such as social causes.

But in a more scientific vein, Humanists tend to be more rational about the matters of life so there is often not much Passion found.  And even if there were passion, it is not directed by a hierarchy telling us how to vent our Passion and granting us salvation for doing what we’re told. 

What’s the solution?  Educate people to use the skills of critical analysis. 

David Kimball

Community and UU and Humanism and HUUmanism

As a new member of HUUmanism (Pronounced "HU-U-manism"), I received a welcome packet including two issues of their journal “Religious Humanism”.  In the Fall 2012 issue, the Editor’s Preface says “Increasingly, we face a choice, framed elsewhere by Mike Werner, [an author of one of the articles] between secular Humanist groups who do a better job of embodying a rational approach to life, and UU congregations who do a better job of providing full-fledged community.”  And several of the articles emphasized the role that “community” plays in UU congregations and also Humanist groups. 

“Community” is one of those words that we use in everyday parlance and seldom stop to think about.  I found myself reacting to the word with the first associations of friendly and welcoming group of people.  But as I reflected on the word a bit more, I realized that there was another aspect to it for me that adds a new, fuller dimension to the word.  (I realize that the word “welcoming” may sometimes mean “welcoming to the GLBT community”, but I am using it here in the broader sense of welcoming of anyone and everyone.) 

When I first moved to the Boston area, after living in the Philadelphia area and before that in Chicago, I found the people here to be friendly and welcoming.  I could talk to people in line at the supermarket and talk about the weather and other superficial, friendly chit-chats.  I found friendly folks in the choruses I joined, the Boards of Director of non-profit organizations where I served, and even at work.   But I found that the people were not inclusive.  No one would say “Let’s get together for lunch”, or “We’re doing such and such this Saturday, would you like to join us?”  There was no opportunity for engagement or building of a relationship.  I found that if I met a man I respected and desired to get to know better, I would ask to get together for lunch, or a drink and I would realize that he thought I was trying hit on him as if we were in a singles bar.  And I found the same type of response if I suggested that to a woman.  That type of friendliness just isn’t practiced here. 

A few years after moving, I attended the Arts Week Conference at Star Island which has a history of being connected to both the UU and UCC churches.  With my Fundamentalist upbringing but my non-religious current beliefs, I wasn’t looking forward to the daily Chapel services each morning.  But after the first service, I mentioned to my ex-wife that I loved a service where the word “god” wasn’t mentioned once.  That was my introduction to UUs.  I became friends with the UU minister and met with her for meals and at other times that week for some great conversations.

After returning from Star Island, I checked into our local church which was also a combination of UU and UCC.  (It turned out that the UCC half was much larger than the UU half.)  I arranged to have breakfast on several Saturday mornings with the minister.  I’m sure that on our first meeting or two, the minister looked at me as a missionary would view a Tutsi and was hoping to corral me as another member.  However soon we were having peer-to-peer discussions on issues international, national, local and even issues within the church.  (Like the fact that she loved my bumper sticker “When the love of power is replaced by the power of love, then the world will know peace”.  But as a minister of that particular church she wasn’t allowed to put any such bumper stickers on her car.)  I did become engaged in the church and was the editor of their newsletter, participated in several special projects, and even gave a few “sermons” in her absence. 

But I felt badly that I didn’t have other close friends in the church.  We would have a time of refreshments after the Sunday service and also discussion groups following the refreshments.  The other members would be friendly and we might talk about the service or other issues, but we’d never get together outside of the church activities.  So one January 1^st, I resolved to do something about it myself.  (I’m a believer that I must be the change that I want.)  My resolution was to invite someone from the church for dinner (or whatever) once a month.  That month, my ex-wife and I invited the minister and her family over for a Sunday dinner of fondue.  But I found that the social dynamic of the minister, her husband, their five-year old, and my ex-wife meant that the discussion never rose above the chit-chat level.  Friendly, yes.  But still superficial. 

And then I failed at getting anyone else from the church to get together with us.  Like a well-brought-up adolescent, I would make it easy for them to say “No”, I would try three times, and then I would accept that it isn’t going to work and would move on.  So my ex-wife and I tried another UU church.  But the minister there wasn’t interested in a peer-to-peer relationship and viewed me only as a congregant filling a spot in a pew.  And during the social hour following the service, it became apparent that the level of interactions with the members would not rise above the superficial level.  Friendly and welcoming, but without depth. 

Then I moved to another city and again had trouble developing any kind of a relationship with the minister or the church members outside of the church activities.  And then I heard of a Humanism group which met once a month.  I went there and really liked what I learned about Humanism and felt comfortable with their philosophy as well as the stimulating environment.  Again, I became quite engaged in the group even giving a multi-media presentation on Dewey as a Humanist and was asked to be on the Steering Committee.  But again, the only personal interactions were a few minutes before or after a planned activity.  For that reason, plus the reason that I felt their definition of “Humanism” was too narrow in that it seemed to only include Pro-Science or Anti-Religion, I left.

I then found another Humanist group – the Concord Area Humanists.  After going to a few of their meetings and not really talking to many people, I at first wondered how long I would last there.  But then one of the leaders started to talk to me and realized that with my background I might be able and might enjoy an opportunity to participate.  So I was invited to be on their Steering Committee and became actively engaged in their activities.  But more importantly, I found not one but several people who would, through their actions, say “You seem to be worth developing a non-superficial relationship with.”  In a short period of time I actually got together with three different leaders of the core group.  These “core leaders” were also the ones who introduced me to HUUmanism. 

Through this journey I realized that I was looking for a church or belief system that resonated strongly within me, and was of course, friendly and welcoming.  But I also was looking for an environment which would provide me the opportunity to develop relationships that would be deeper than friendliness.  I required an opportunity to become engaged in the organization, and also I required relationships that were more than friendly interactions. 

In my thoughts on “Self Culture”, a sermon by Ellery Channing in 1838, I developed what to me was a rather unique definition of “Culture”.  “Culture” here is not the culture of art and humanities, nor is it an ethnic culture that we often think of.  Rather, it is like the biology culture dish (Petri dishes).  This is an environment which is specifically designed to promote the development of an organism.  In this case, the “organism” would be a developed relationship with another human.  So to me, when I think of the “Community” that I want to find in a UU church, or a Humanism group, or in a HUUmanism group, I am looking for an environment which is specifically designed to promote interactions to the point of developing relationships. 

David Kimball

Isaac Asimov

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny …”

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

Life is pleasant.  Death is peaceful.  It’s the transition that’s troublesome.

I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I don’t have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or feaing heaven even more.  For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.

Creationists make it sound as though a “theory” is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.

And above all things, never think that you’re not good enough yourself.  A man should never think that.  My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning.

No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.

Humanity has the starts in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.

There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

To insult someone we call him “bestial”.  For deliberate cruelty and nature, “human” might be the greater insult.

When I read about the ways in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.

It is change, continuing change, inevitable change that is the dominant factor in society today.  No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn’t brood.  I’d type a little faster.

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

From a song:  “Tell me why the stars do shine/Tell me why the ivy twines,/Tell me what makes skies so blue,/And I’ll tell you why I love you.”  Response:  “Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,/ Tropisms make the ivy twine,/Raleigh scattering make skies so blue,/Testicular hormones are why I love you.”

Emotionally I am an atheist.  I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

I prefer rationalism to atheism.  The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.

There are no nations!  There is only humanity.  And if we don’t come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity.

Gradually, though, I became aware that there was a movement called “humanism,” which used that name because, to put it most simply, Humanists believe that human beings produced the progressive advance of human society and also the ills that plague it. They believe that if the ills are to be alleviated, it is humanity that will have to do the job. They disbelieve in the influence of the supernatural on either the good or the bad of society, on either its ills or the alleviation of those ills.

(In 1984, Isaac Asimov was named “Humanist of the Year” by the American Humanist Association