Comments for Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development

Comment on A ministry for future generations? Seriously? by Michael

Michael — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:06:16 +0000

Great initiative! Institutions and policies to bring the needs of future generations into the heart of our democracies are definitely useful.

One approach should be to bring the subject closer to the public. E.g., the Clock of the Long Now (longnow.org), Long Player (longplayer.org), milliongeneration’s Letters (milliongenerations.org), and Time Buoys (timebuoys.net) intend to (in the words of Time Buoys) “trigger long-term thinking in public spaces by promoting and disseminating physical reminders that will remain present for millenia”.

Public awareness is one step. Developing viable visions on long term existence is another. It is not possible to predict the future. Useful deductions can, however, be made from the assumption that knowledge continues to be passed on on this planet for very long time spans. To deduct what future existence requires.

Worth a try. Keep this effort up, please!

Comment on Intergenerational fairness, housing and planning policy by Derek

Derek — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:04:32 +0000

I have never heard so much rubbish talked about housing.

Comment on Intergenerational fairness, housing and planning policy by bondski

bondski — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:45:48 +0000

I do agree with Chris – the baby boomer births were just after the end of WW2, I was one of them, born into a world of rationing and austerity. Started work at 16 in 1963. I saved up, with my fiancee, for our first house – we had to move out of London as the prices were unaffordable and we moved back in after 3 years when we could afford to. The Building Societys would only let you borrow 2.5 times highest salary plus 1 time lowest which we could afford to pay. Then came the years of spiralling inflation of the 1970s this followed on from the Wilson’s government of wage freezing and prices and incomes policies.

It wasnt all sweetness and roses in those days however now the mortgage is paid off and we are now in receipt of our pensions, along comes this report from a questionable foundation that probably has charitable status that appears to be resentful as to our status in life. We are being blamed for all the ills of this economic situation along with the bankers. If you just look at the basic history of the last 60 years no generation has had it so good every generation has had their worries and anxieties so dont blame us that have just retired.

Comment on Intergenerational fairness, housing and planning policy by chris

chris — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:39:39 +0000

The current “baby boomers” come from what was a majority of population of workers at the start of their careers in the late 60′s onwards and were referred to as “working class”. This generation worked more than 40 hours per week and often on saturday and sunday to make up a salary that qualified for a house. Usually both salaries at the higher working week were taken in to consideration. The majority of “working class” baby boomers started work at aged 16. There was high unemployment in the northern parts of the UK due to heavy industry closing down but those that were lucky enough to keep their homes both working and paying a mortgage based on two salaries at longer than 40 hours per week. Those that who lost their jobs, a lot lost their homes and the families were divided. At lot of the families did not reunite in their childhood. Those that have worked hard to rehouse themselves and learn a new career are the people being referred to as room blockers. In many cases their first property would have been a 1 one bedroom flat or one up and one down terrace. Couples starting off today, start work later, take gap years to travel abroad, have luxuries such as new cars, mobile phones, electronics, frequent holidays overseas , sky TV and a good nightlife. This was not in the dreams of the majority of the working population of the baby boomers and the preceding generations. The current families starting off, whilst many may be finding it hard the majority of the population are middle class, their first home is two or three bedroom, two cars and all of the added extras. They are struggling it’s true but to maintain a much higher quality of life of non essenstials than the “room blockers” described. Overall the baby boomer room blocker generation are having their retirement age extended, having started working at an earlier age and without any gap year or two in between and working longer hours. Where the retirement age has been extended to beyond 60 and then 65, there is no special program to encourage business to employ older workers like there is for graduate and apprentices and by default, their housing will become available as they will not be able to earn the wage to keep their homes anyway………….

Comment on Sir Geoffrey Chandler, 1922-2011 by Jennie

Jennie — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:21:25 +0000

This is a great loss. I was a young african woman when I got a job as Geoffrey’s secretary at the RSA (Industry Matters). He was kind, accommodating and a very good teacher. I enjoyed typing his speeches and watching him speak at different foras. Little did I know at that time that I would use those skills in my speeches as a cabinet minister in my country and at the UN. Geoffrey was a great inspiration to me and my family. May his soul rest in peace.

Comment on All things sustainable.. by Rupert Read

Rupert Read — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:43:26 +0000

Thanks Halina.
A fairly devastating analysis…

Useful!

And depressing…

Comment on Professor John Ruggie talks Business, Human Rights and Democracy by equality rights

equality rights — Wed, 11 May 2011 23:06:15 +0000

I believe Professor John Ruggie covered number of areas. It was great to hear this talk. I liked it because this is my area of interest.

Comment on Sir Geoffrey Chandler, 1922-2011 by Francois Hiriart

Francois Hiriart — Tue, 10 May 2011 11:57:28 +0000

In the early eighties, I was a young engineer working for Shell in the desert of Oman, being in charge of a drilling rig. On the radio, I was told that a member of the Shell Board, was on his way to pay me a 24 hours visit, so I may have spent a wondefull and inspiring time with Sir Goeffrey. I say that because, I was probably so impressed that I forgot his name. May be you could confirm that Sir Geoffrey was in Oman during that time or give me the adress of his spouse so I can share this wonderfull experience with her. I am now an experienced industry manager and I am using every day sine many years what this wonderfull english gentleman toughtme oneday in the desert :” Do not forget that if one day you are in charge of business, small or very big, that you must manage it as if you were flying a Spitfire…be always alert and swift !”

Comment on Sir Geoffrey Chandler, 1922-2011 by Michael Massey

Michael Massey — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:31:38 +0000

Very sad to hear this news – a real gentleman in all the best senses of the word

Comment on Vietnam’s PM on democracy as a factor of sustainable development by Hanna Berglin

Hanna Berglin — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:25:17 +0000

Hello !
I have a school prodject with the topic DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM in a optional country and I have some questions that I can´t find answers to . I hope you migth help me
For how long have Vietnam had democracy ? Since when ?
What was it that made them got democracy and who ?
How was it before ? Democracy or dictatorship ?

If you know some good webbsites , that would be nice

I would be very happy if you could help me !

Thank you a lot ! (L)

Comment on CERN: a failure of democracy and sustainability? by Sokolov

Sokolov — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:47:53 +0000

1.CERN well itself advertises. And in advertising do not speak about problems. Discussions about problems of safety of experiments on LHC with independent scientists CERN avoids. The report on safety of experiments on LHC is the document which is not maintaining the elementary technical criticism. The set of problems is ignored.
- There are no high energies in physics and branch self-restrictions in experimental activity are not supposed. That’s why dangerous limits in this sphere should be established legislatively.
- Сolliders with parameters “the stream density” and “luminosity” don’t have any remote terrestrial analogues.
- There are no analogues of colliders in nature.
- Experiments on colliders with the mechanism of collisions differ from the similar natural phenomena. Nature does not set up “LHC-experiments”. It is not necessary to expect any naturalness from what is not present in nature. That’s why there is no guarantee of safety of experiments on colliders.
- Colliders by a principle of the action possess the greatest destructive energy.
- Collision of mini – “black hole” or other exotic object of a microcosm with dust particles is possible in colliders. And it can cause process of transformation of usual terrestrial substance into the unusual one.
- The probability of neutralization of the rotational moment of short time binuclear clump, as one of the elements of proton protection increases in colliders of new generation
- Experiments on colliders can initiate processes with large specific energy allocation.
- In colliders chain subnuclear processes, in which the usual terrestrial substance and vacuum can be involved, are possible.
- There are no safety systems from dangerous subnuclear processes in colliders. Thus, colliders, similar to LHC, can cause global danger, like systems of reaction generating extreme processes, which don’t exists in terrestrial conditions.(AССELERATOR LHC: “NEW CHEMISTRY”.The review of not considered risks.
( http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/10193.html)
2. For this purpose there is a simple reason – the theoretical physics became orthodox religion, and СERN is the most dangerous dictatorship in the world which has appropriated the right to solve destiny of mankind(LHC accelerator, as a mirror of scientific knowledge. Epistemological thoughts.
( http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/10295.html )

V.Sokolov,
Cand. Sci.(Chem)
scientific knowledge. Epistemological thoughts(http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/10295.html))

Comment on CERN: a failure of democracy and sustainability? by Ian Christie

Ian Christie — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:39:16 +0000

Thanks to Emma for an excellent article.

I raised this issue in 2005 at the Institute of Ideas’ ‘Battle of Ideas’ conference, as part of a debate entitled ‘Should scientists play God?’ The view of most speakers from the very ‘pro-science’ audience was that any flinching from the pursuit of knowledge at the frontiers of research would amount to bad faith, wimpish lack of confidence in human ingenuity, and ultimately an anti-human threat to ‘progress’. There was much scorn for the Precautionary Principle, seen by many as a ‘Preventionary Principle’ that stood in the way of daring innovations and the quest for knowledge. Many in the room thought that a tiny risk of the end of the world might be a price worth paying for breakthroughs in understanding and technological mastery of the world. My view was, and remains, that in domains where theoretical models and speculation far outstrip our capacity to do test experiments, and where risks exist of ‘existential damage’ (eg irreparable destruction of the conditions for further human and terrestrial development), then 99.99% confidence is not good enough and risks should not be run.

The issues raised by this debate and the CERN case are relevant for the way we decide about risks and tolerable levels of uncertainty in relation to big issues in sustainable development and environmental policy. In particular they are relevant to the emerging politics and ethics of ‘geo-engineering’, ie large-scale deliberate attempts to manipulate ecosystems to avert problems we can’t solve politically in time to prevent damage (such as dangerous climate disruption).

In all these cases representative democracy and mass media are unlikely to raise the issues ‘in time’ or possibly at all. A deliberative process is needed to screen ‘existential proposals’, perhaps focusing on open hearings involving scientists, critics of proposals, elected representatives and citizens selected by lot.

This could work well for specific projects (such as the LHC study) where the existential risk in question is dependent on things happening or not in a particular well-governed place. After all, the LHC’s experiments can only be done with some difficulty at CERN and (so far) nowhere else. The situation is much more complex and problematic with geo-engineering, where several major powers will be in a position during this century to engage in attempts at ‘planet management’ that could be unilateral and have global consequences. (Just as many of those powers have already done unwitting geo-engineering on a huge scale by emitting GHGs from industry for two centuries).

Comment on CERN: a failure of democracy and sustainability? by James Blodgett

James Blodgett — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:17:32 +0000

Emma Woods is correct, collider advocates have not done good risk management. Several times they have asserted safety considerations that were supposedly adequate to protect Earth, then had to quietly abandon them and assert new safety considerations when the originals proved inadequate. A good article on the history of this is Eric E. Johnson, “The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World,” Tennessee Law Review, Vol 76, pp.819-908, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480 .
Appropriate risk management considers benefits as well as risks. Emma Woods is also correct in saying that pure research can be valuable. But can any benefit be worth an existential risk, a risk to the existence of all of humanity? Sometimes even existential risk can be balanced by the prospect of existential benefit. We should compare the probability that colliders will kill us with the probability that colliders will save us. Unfortunately, we have to do this balancing act in a field where there is no definitive way to calculate probability, where probability estimates range over many orders of magnitude, and where there are strong conflicts of interests to skew estimates. There are extreme cases where science should perhaps be banned, but this is not an easy prescription, and it is not a prescription that is easy to implement.
Each existential risk presents differently. Most collider advocates deny risk. There are other scientific risks that are so obvious that scientists do not try to deny them. An example is the risk associated with what many call the “singularity.”
Arthur Clarke says “a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Moore’s law says that computers, and by extension technology in general, is improving exponentially. The singularity is that time, often projected for the very near future, when exponentially improving technology will become sufficiently advanced. Picture artificial intelligence many times smarter than the entire human race. Picture nanotech so advanced that a wave of our hand rebuilds our bodies or reprocesses waste or generates energy or builds a city or colonizes the galaxy. If the singularity happens, existential benefits are part of its definition. If the singularity happens, many of the traditional problems of sustainability disappear, a result of interest to the foundation that maintains this website (the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development). Unfortunately, we have to ask if the singularity itself is sustainable and otherwise safe. Out-of-control artificial intelligence and nanotech are staples of science fiction. Singularity advocates say that we should make these technologies friendly, a very good idea. However, some promise that we can prove friendliness in advance, a promise that is probably impossible. Nevertheless, the singularity, if achievable, may be a risk worth taking. Even if we disagree that we should take this risk, it may be hard to stop.
If it were easy to definitively save humanity from an existential risk, some one of our seven billion would do so. Remaining risks are less tractable. However, good thinkers like Emma Woods raise the probability of good outcomes by a small amount. Generally good thought is at least a bit more likely to produce good outcomes. For example, collider critics repeatedly forced collider advocates to advance new safety considerations. Safety considerations were never totally adequate, but they did rule out areas of trouble, decreasing odds of disaster that were already fairly improbable. The appropriate mathematics for risk is expected value, probability times value, in this case negative value. Even a low probability has an enormous negative expected value when the cost at issue is Earth. If good thought reduces that low probability by a small amount, the improvement in expected value can often be “worth” thousands of lives. This can be frustrating because the world is not saved definitively, but it is still worthwhile.

Comment on Professor John Ruggie talks Business, Human Rights and Democracy by Olufela Brimah

Olufela Brimah — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:23:35 +0000

I listened to Professor John Ruggie interview on the BBC world service (24th jan 2010)concerning the Framework
for Business and Human Rights.It was well constructed, brilliantly delivered
in fact it touched various areas I myself haven’t thought about. I’ve always been interested in Development & Environmental Issues and this interview further broaden my horizons

Comment on Professor John Ruggie talks Business, Human Rights and Democracy by Emma Woods

Emma Woods — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:56:13 +0000

A video of Professor Ruggie’s speech ‘The Construction of the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework for Business and Human Rights: The True Confessions of a Principled Pragmatist’ is now available here: http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/VideosSpeakerSeries