I notice that Americans under the age of 30 are now saying “based off of” instead of “based on.” I Googled to see if that was a trend and found this handy graph by Ann Curzan:

In published books, “based on” still outnumbers “based off of” by a ratio of 100,000:1, but “based off” has risen (from zero instances) since ca. 1980. Of course, books do not provide a representative sample of all communication, since young adults publish relatively few of them, and young authors tend to be copy-edited by older people. In speech and emails, “based off of” is clearly becoming more common.

I personally prefer “based on” because one preposition is neater than two in a row, and the metaphor makes more sense if something is on rather than “off of” a base. I concede, however, that language evolves and there is nothing sacrosanct about which prepositions follow each verb. (And if I’m going to complain, the use of “around” to indicate a topic seems worse.)

The post “based off of”? appeared first on Peter Levine.

For this and other writings, visit my Web site, EricThomasWeber.org. Follow me on your preferred medium: Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. I'm also on LinkedIn and Academia.edu.
----------

"Political Discourse Can Only Be Efficacious If It Is Free: Expert" 

Printed in The Tehran Times, August 25, 2014, International section

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber

You can read the scan of the article by clicking here, or you can read the HTML version following the image.

Click here to open a PDF scan of the article.

HTML/text version:

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, by Javad Heiran-Nia

TEHRAN - Professor Eric Thomas Weber believes that political discourse can only be efficacious if it is free.

In an interview with the Tehran Times, Weber says, "Political discourse must be supported by honest and sound reasoning."

Weber, the professor of public policy leadership at the University of Mississippi, also says, "Without basis in the truth, in proper logic, and in the use of healthy emotions, the exploitation of sentiments to shape people's attitudes is immoral."

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: How does political discourse shape society? 

A: Many factors shape society, including especially the environments we live in and the conditions we endure or enjoy. Many problems arise because the majority of people do not feel the concerns of a minority. In some countries, the majority or its political representatives prohibit the minority even from voicing its concerns in public dialogue. Political discourse is one of the important avenues by which we argue for this or that solution in policy for the resolution of our problems. Such discourse is not always the most powerful force in changing people's minds, as people are often moved by emotions or by self-interest. Therefore, to change minds, we must often find ways to exert pressure on people's emotions or pocket-books.

When a majority or advantaged group routinely does wrong or is insensitive to the plight of others, we can shame offenders by talking about, recording, and broadcasting the troubling behavior we wish to end. We can also tell the stories of those who are affected and oppressed, humanizing them for others and enabling people to see the world from the point of view of that minority. The former force exerts psychological pressure to change for those who feel ashamed when their behavior becomes known and the subject of discussion and disapproval. In areas of great injustice, public discourse in the press, the arts, and the humanities are routinely circumscribed precisely because of their power to shape public opinion for the sake of redressing harms done by the powerful or the majority. As a result, a key measure of a society's freedom is the extent to which such channels and means are free for inquiry, allowing people to speak up against injustice.

Political discourse can draw on the imagery and emotional rhetoric necessary to influence people, but it adds a vital component to the effort to pursue reform for the sake of justice. Political discourse must be supported by honest and sound reasoning. Without basis in the truth, in proper logic, and in the use of healthy emotions, the exploitation of sentiments to shape people's attitudes is immoral. Political discourse is the medium in which ideals and considerations are assessed, clarified, and rendered concrete in reference to contemporary problems. Therefore, any movement towards justice using emotion and rhetoric to shape public opinion must be rooted in the values of free political discourse. Societies which repress political discourse thereby reveal a spreading crack in their governments' claims on legitimate authority.

Q: Does political discourse need a manager for survival? 

A: There are several ways to interpret the question of whether political discourse requires a manager. On the one hand, oversight by a government which decides that some ideas or challenges cannot be discussed is evidence that its grasp on authority is achieved only by censorship, by threat of violent, social, or economic pressures to conform. In that sense, a manager for political discourse will appear deeply troubling to anyone who loves freedom and democracy. On the other hand, without some kind of check on public voices, people could injure one another with baseless libel, rooted in falsehood and intended to harm. Credibility matters. The truth matters. Therefore, the real managers of discourse in the context of libel are mechanisms like the courts, through which individuals can protect their reputations with lawsuits. In addition, in the courts, laws against perjury contribute to managing truth-telling, but only in limited contexts.

Two more points are deeply important for considering what kind of management is acceptable and even morally necessary for political discourse to avoid harm or to enable social progress. The first is that people lead busy lives and often lack the time to dedicate themselves to the research and writing it takes to weigh in provocatively on political issues. Given this constraint, "opinion leaders" play an important role in advancing political discourse. The trouble is that powerful and advantaged citizens and organizations have enormously greater resources for the sponsorship of voices representing their interests, while the disadvantaged citizens lack such resources and consequently voice for their concerns. Some people can help diminish the imbalance to a small degree, including the nobler religious leaders who speak up for the least among us. Others are journalists who are sometimes supported by their readership and editors for speaking up for the greater public interest. Then there are the more occasional contributors from universities around the world, like mine, and from other industries.

The second though more important source of management of political discourse is an educated public. The public exerts its force on political discourse first and most fundamentally in its reactions to the news of government action. The public's critiques must be informed and enabled, however, which occurs through the empowering results of universal education. Thomas Jefferson famously advocated for an educated public as the only guarantee for the preservation of a free society. Without an educated populace, the arguments of those in power do not have to be well reasoned and demonstrated. Frederick Douglass explained long ago that power concedes nothing without demand. The public must both understand and react intelligently to the ideas put forth in political discourse. Then it must demand that persons in positions of power enact those policies and decisions which reflect the will of the people. In this sense, then, the greatest manager of political discourse, as inchoate as it often appears to be, is the people exerting pressure on public figures and raising expectations for leadership.

Q: How can political discourse prevail in a society like societies in the Middle East? 

A: Political discourse can only be efficacious if it is free. Before any other demand brought to politicians, a free press must be the first step. No figure should be above scrutiny. When people go hungry, when medicines are needed but denied, when persons are imprisoned wrongfully, the people have no recourse, no avenue for redress if they are not permitted to raise concerns about justice, truth, and reform. In the United States, the protection of free speech is so great that radically unpopular messages are tolerated. The reason is not that people enjoy such speech. Rather, it is important to know what citizens think, even if they are wrong. More importantly, if people do not have the release of energies and pressures which comes from speaking one's mind about what one believes to be right, the only alternative is explosive violence. Therefore, the protection of radical and unpopular speech is crucial for social stability, even though one might expect the reverse to be the case.

In recent years, the world has witnessed uprisings in such developments as the Arab Spring. These moments are examples of the buildup of dissatisfactions not permitted release. In time, more constriction of the people will almost certainly result in further eruptions of revolutionary action. Societies unwilling to expand people's freedoms will be the least able to maintain themselves. Ironically, the desire for stability should prompt leaders to fight for opening up the avenues for political discourse which will appear turbulent and chaotic. Battles in the realm of ideas, however, are processes by which intelligence is refined and the best ideas can rise to the surface like cream. Conflicts about how best to lead society replace political imprisonment, violence, and censorship, and in exchange offer the give and take of public inquiry in pursuit of the wisest course of action for leadership. After all, there is no better test of the merits and flaws of one's policy proposals than the deep scrutiny which arises when one submits his or her ideas for objective evaluation, for the receipt of the objections from opposition and skeptics.

There is no more important development which could yield moral, social, and intellectual progress in the Middle East than the progressive growth of freedom in public dialogue. All else hinges upon this, including the legitimacy of existing political authorities, and consequently the likelihood of their long-term survival. It may seem counterintuitive, but the clearest path to a stable society in much of the Middle East runs through change – through the sincere release of the reins which presently inhibit the exercise of free political discourse.

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber is associate professor of Public Policy Leadership at the University of Mississippi and is author of four books, including Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue (November, 2013) - 30% discount available when you buy from the publisher's Web site, see discount flyer. 
------------------

For this and other writings, visit my Web site, EricThomasWeber.org. Follow me on your preferred medium: Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. I'm also on LinkedIn and Academia.edu.
----------

"Political Discourse Can Only Be Efficacious If It Is Free: Expert" 

Printed in The Tehran Times, August 25, 2014, International section

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber

You can read the scan of the article by clicking here, or you can read the HTML version following the image.

Click here to open a PDF scan of the article.

HTML/text version:

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, by Javad Heiran-Nia

TEHRAN - Professor Eric Thomas Weber believes that political discourse can only be efficacious if it is free.

In an interview with the Tehran Times, Weber says, "Political discourse must be supported by honest and sound reasoning."

Weber, the professor of public policy leadership at the University of Mississippi, also says, "Without basis in the truth, in proper logic, and in the use of healthy emotions, the exploitation of sentiments to shape people's attitudes is immoral."

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: How does political discourse shape society? 

A: Many factors shape society, including especially the environments we live in and the conditions we endure or enjoy. Many problems arise because the majority of people do not feel the concerns of a minority. In some countries, the majority or its political representatives prohibit the minority even from voicing its concerns in public dialogue. Political discourse is one of the important avenues by which we argue for this or that solution in policy for the resolution of our problems. Such discourse is not always the most powerful force in changing people's minds, as people are often moved by emotions or by self-interest. Therefore, to change minds, we must often find ways to exert pressure on people's emotions or pocket-books.

When a majority or advantaged group routinely does wrong or is insensitive to the plight of others, we can shame offenders by talking about, recording, and broadcasting the troubling behavior we wish to end. We can also tell the stories of those who are affected and oppressed, humanizing them for others and enabling people to see the world from the point of view of that minority. The former force exerts psychological pressure to change for those who feel ashamed when their behavior becomes known and the subject of discussion and disapproval. In areas of great injustice, public discourse in the press, the arts, and the humanities are routinely circumscribed precisely because of their power to shape public opinion for the sake of redressing harms done by the powerful or the majority. As a result, a key measure of a society's freedom is the extent to which such channels and means are free for inquiry, allowing people to speak up against injustice.

Political discourse can draw on the imagery and emotional rhetoric necessary to influence people, but it adds a vital component to the effort to pursue reform for the sake of justice. Political discourse must be supported by honest and sound reasoning. Without basis in the truth, in proper logic, and in the use of healthy emotions, the exploitation of sentiments to shape people's attitudes is immoral. Political discourse is the medium in which ideals and considerations are assessed, clarified, and rendered concrete in reference to contemporary problems. Therefore, any movement towards justice using emotion and rhetoric to shape public opinion must be rooted in the values of free political discourse. Societies which repress political discourse thereby reveal a spreading crack in their governments' claims on legitimate authority.

Q: Does political discourse need a manager for survival? 

A: There are several ways to interpret the question of whether political discourse requires a manager. On the one hand, oversight by a government which decides that some ideas or challenges cannot be discussed is evidence that its grasp on authority is achieved only by censorship, by threat of violent, social, or economic pressures to conform. In that sense, a manager for political discourse will appear deeply troubling to anyone who loves freedom and democracy. On the other hand, without some kind of check on public voices, people could injure one another with baseless libel, rooted in falsehood and intended to harm. Credibility matters. The truth matters. Therefore, the real managers of discourse in the context of libel are mechanisms like the courts, through which individuals can protect their reputations with lawsuits. In addition, in the courts, laws against perjury contribute to managing truth-telling, but only in limited contexts.

Two more points are deeply important for considering what kind of management is acceptable and even morally necessary for political discourse to avoid harm or to enable social progress. The first is that people lead busy lives and often lack the time to dedicate themselves to the research and writing it takes to weigh in provocatively on political issues. Given this constraint, "opinion leaders" play an important role in advancing political discourse. The trouble is that powerful and advantaged citizens and organizations have enormously greater resources for the sponsorship of voices representing their interests, while the disadvantaged citizens lack such resources and consequently voice for their concerns. Some people can help diminish the imbalance to a small degree, including the nobler religious leaders who speak up for the least among us. Others are journalists who are sometimes supported by their readership and editors for speaking up for the greater public interest. Then there are the more occasional contributors from universities around the world, like mine, and from other industries.

The second though more important source of management of political discourse is an educated public. The public exerts its force on political discourse first and most fundamentally in its reactions to the news of government action. The public's critiques must be informed and enabled, however, which occurs through the empowering results of universal education. Thomas Jefferson famously advocated for an educated public as the only guarantee for the preservation of a free society. Without an educated populace, the arguments of those in power do not have to be well reasoned and demonstrated. Frederick Douglass explained long ago that power concedes nothing without demand. The public must both understand and react intelligently to the ideas put forth in political discourse. Then it must demand that persons in positions of power enact those policies and decisions which reflect the will of the people. In this sense, then, the greatest manager of political discourse, as inchoate as it often appears to be, is the people exerting pressure on public figures and raising expectations for leadership.

Q: How can political discourse prevail in a society like societies in the Middle East? 

A: Political discourse can only be efficacious if it is free. Before any other demand brought to politicians, a free press must be the first step. No figure should be above scrutiny. When people go hungry, when medicines are needed but denied, when persons are imprisoned wrongfully, the people have no recourse, no avenue for redress if they are not permitted to raise concerns about justice, truth, and reform. In the United States, the protection of free speech is so great that radically unpopular messages are tolerated. The reason is not that people enjoy such speech. Rather, it is important to know what citizens think, even if they are wrong. More importantly, if people do not have the release of energies and pressures which comes from speaking one's mind about what one believes to be right, the only alternative is explosive violence. Therefore, the protection of radical and unpopular speech is crucial for social stability, even though one might expect the reverse to be the case.

In recent years, the world has witnessed uprisings in such developments as the Arab Spring. These moments are examples of the buildup of dissatisfactions not permitted release. In time, more constriction of the people will almost certainly result in further eruptions of revolutionary action. Societies unwilling to expand people's freedoms will be the least able to maintain themselves. Ironically, the desire for stability should prompt leaders to fight for opening up the avenues for political discourse which will appear turbulent and chaotic. Battles in the realm of ideas, however, are processes by which intelligence is refined and the best ideas can rise to the surface like cream. Conflicts about how best to lead society replace political imprisonment, violence, and censorship, and in exchange offer the give and take of public inquiry in pursuit of the wisest course of action for leadership. After all, there is no better test of the merits and flaws of one's policy proposals than the deep scrutiny which arises when one submits his or her ideas for objective evaluation, for the receipt of the objections from opposition and skeptics.

There is no more important development which could yield moral, social, and intellectual progress in the Middle East than the progressive growth of freedom in public dialogue. All else hinges upon this, including the legitimacy of existing political authorities, and consequently the likelihood of their long-term survival. It may seem counterintuitive, but the clearest path to a stable society in much of the Middle East runs through change – through the sincere release of the reins which presently inhibit the exercise of free political discourse.

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber is associate professor of Public Policy Leadership at the University of Mississippi and is author of four books, including Democracy and Leadership: On Pragmatism and Virtue (November, 2013) - 30% discount available when you buy from the publisher's Web site, see discount flyer. 
------------------

Perhaps it is my field of work or area of interest, but it seems like nearly every day I hear someone proclaim – it’s important to have hope.

Now, as much as the contrarian in me may revel in flippantly calling myself anti-hope, the truth is, I have no qualms with, nor judgements of, people who embrace hope as a core need.

It strikes me as a deeply personal matter: some people have faith, some people don’t. Some people have hope, some people don’t. Some people need that something – whether they call it faith, or hope, or use some other word – some people need that. Many people need that.

But some people don’t.

It’s okay to be hopeless.

I mean, it’s okay to be hopeless if you’re okay with being hopeless. Many people aren’t okay with being hopeless, but find themselves hopeless nonetheless. That is a problem indeed.

But do we need to force hope on everyone? To consider hope a core requirement for whatever moves you as the Good Life?

I don’t think so.

It’s okay to be hopeless.

Of course, a key question here is what it means to have hope.

I often hear the term applied to collective action – to social change. It’s important to have hope that we can make a difference. That we can make the world better.

That sounds a reasonable claim, and yet – this is where I find hopelessness most noble.

Faced with overwhelming injustice and so many wrongs in the world, I select two kinds of battles to fight: those I can win and those worth fighting.

I’ll admit to having a bias for practicality, so I’ve certainly been known to evaluate efforts in terms of probable impacts – to favor a strategy or approach that will work.

But pursuing the fights you can win is not enough. Sometimes it is just as important – perhaps more important – to fight the battles you’ll never win.

Of course, one may hedge here, arguing that even a statement of hopelessness is bolstered by a deeper sense of hope. It’s like the argument that that all altruism is ultimately self-interest.

And yet – is there not something compellingly beautiful in the image of someone fighting for justice, fighting for what’s right, but knowing they’ll never win? Knowing they’ll never move the needle, nor make any difference, nor even be remembered for their efforts? Fighting only because it’s the right thing to do.

There’s something remarkable in passion without hope.

Hope can also be seen at a much more personal level. Hope that your life will have meaning. Hope that you’ll make it through the day.

Questioning the universal need for such individual hope is much less socially acceptable.

And the demand for hope here is reasonable. Terrible things happen to people without hope. They feel terrible things, experience terrible things, perhaps even do terrible things.

Hope should not be denied. No life should be lost to hopelessness.

And yet -

Does a widespread need for hope translate to a universal need for hope? Is hope so essential that hopelessness should be removed as an option? That no person should be welcome to stand up and proudly declare their hopelessness?

It’s the pursuit of that universal hope which worries me.

Hopelessness should always be an option.

Perhaps not the right option for the vast majority of people, but an option nonetheless. There is nothing wrong with people who need hope, and there is nothing wrong with people who need to be without it.

There is, after all, something dangerous in hope. It doesn’t help to proclaim that it gets better if, indeed, it never gets better. Shattered dreams can be worse than no dreams at all.

But I digress. For, really, the conversation about individual hope comes down to one question – imagine that person laying in bed. Staring blankly at the ceiling. Too broken to move and swallowed by that dark cavern of despair. Hopeless.

The real question is what gets that person out of bed. What heals them.

Hope, perhaps.

But, I think, not necessarily. There is power in hopelessness. Not just the power to destroy, but the power to repair. Embracing hopelessness can ease that despair.

Perhaps not for everyone. Perhaps not for the vast majority of people. But, perhaps, for some.

Hopelessness should always be an option.

Economic inequality and blocked social mobility are so closely linked they are often confused with one another. But they are two quite different problems.

Economic inequality refers to the widening gaps in income and wealth between the low-middle and high income strata of our society. Social mobility refers to the ease (or difficulty) of moving up the income escalator through one’s own efforts.

Advocates tend to offer one-sided strategies to address the two problems. Those focused on social mobility tend to emphasize redistribution strategies. But advocates of redistribution do not always realize that reducing income inequality may not improve social mobility. Conversely, strategies for easing social mobility may leave income inequality barely touched.

There are also large differences in public support for the two strategies. Strategies for improving social mobility enjoy much broader public support than redistribution strategies.

In our era of specialization, it is important to decide whether the strategy of choice for addressing both problems is economic or political. I agree with the many economists like Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz who strongly insists that they require political rather than economic remedies.

Stiglitz characterizes economic inequality and social immobility as complex political problems that politicians can’t solve through conventional legislation and regulation. He believes that the public at large has to get directly and fully engaged. The American public has to confront and wrestle with the problem, but, as he states, "they can do so only if they understand the depths and dimensions of the challenge." This is an eloquent phrase, but it is difficult to unpack its concrete, specific meaning.

I agree with Stiglitz that without strong public engagement and support, conventional political tactics will prove insufficient. But I’m not sure how we go about mobilizing the public to confront the issue in its full "depth and dimensions.”

At present, the American public is so divided and disengaged that Stiglitz’s advice seems a counsel of despair. We live in an era of all-pervasive public mistrust and disengagement (aside from relatively small numbers of activists at the ideological extremes). At present, our public discourse is not up to the demand for deep engagement and thoughtful deliberation. And it is not likely to be for years to come.

On the other hand, if one takes a moderately long-term point of view, there are reasonable grounds for optimism. If we can get beyond the current disengaged mood there are ways of encouraging strong public engagement, and there are powerful incentives for doing so.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

I recently ran across MentalFloss’ list of 6 Angry Letters Kids Sent Neil deGrasse Tyson About Pluto.

The content for this 2013 article came from a 2010 PBS slideshow, which in turn came from deGrasse Tyson’s 2009 book “The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.”

This, of course, all came after the International Astronomical Union (IAU) revised it’s definition of a planet in 2006.

The revised definition notably excluded Pluto.

Eight years later and people are still upset.

Numerous books and articles have been written on the topic – exploring the history of Pluto’s 1930 discovery, the more recent discovery of numerous “Trans-Neptunian Objects,” Pluto’s eventual declassification, and, of course, the uproar that followed. And that continues.

Alan Boyle, author of “The Case for Pluto: How a Little Planet Made a Big Difference,” explained in a 2009 Wired article:

Throughout most of the history of that little world, we’ve thought of it as a poor little oddball that didn’t fit in with the rest of the kids in the solar system and really needed to be protected. So to my mind it’s really not so much about [love of Disney's dog Pluto], but it’s about the underdog.

And everybody loves an underdog.

I’ve always been a big fan of Pluto myself. Just like me, Pluto has an eccentric orbit. All the planets travel in ellipses – as stated in Kepler’s first law of planetary motion – but Pluto’s orbit is an elongated ellipse, while other orbits are relatively circular. Furthermore, Pluto’s orbit is inclined at a 17 degree angle relative to the essentially flat plane the other planets travel.

The best part of this crazy orbit is that Pluto is sometimes 9th from the sun and sometimes 8th. Sometimes Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune.

Pluto breaks all the rules.

Not to mention that it’s a Terran body beyond the Jovian bodies. Madness.

So, I guess I always did think of Pluto as an oddball. As an object that didn’t fit in with all the so-called normal planets traversing their orderly paths, sitting all neat and pretty, always doing what they’re told.

But an underdog? Something that needs to be protected?

Never.

Pluto does Pluto. Pluto doesn’t care what the other planets do.

The scientist and astronomer in me appreciates the IAU’s revision. I might quibble with some of their language – the qualification that a planet must have “cleared its orbit,” for example, is startlingly imprecise. But at the end of the day, I agree that we need clear, formal definitions and classifications.

A classification which included Pluto as a planet would doubtless be too broad. The other Dwarf Planets – for that is what Pluto now is – would be planets as well. Eris would be a planet, and that would be chaos. Pluto’s moon, Charon, might end up as a planet, and who knows what other Kuiper Belt objects or extra-solar objects might end up as planets.

No, that would surely be too much.

But Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Or perhaps, more accurately, I don’t think Pluto will ever care about the classifications of some carbon-based organic matter on the third planet from the Sun.

Haters gonna hate, but Pluto doesn’t care.

Pluto just keeps doing Pluto.

Amartya Sen’s August 22 New Republic piece probably has an unfortunate title: “Stop Obsessing About Global Warming.” That is bad advice–and a poor summary of the article–if it means: “Care less about climate change.” But it is wise guidance if it means: “Care more about other things, too.” (The latter, by the way, is a valid gloss on “Stop obsessing”).

[8/25: the headline has been changed to "Global Warming Is Just One of Many Environmental Threats That Demand Our Attention"]

In any case, the article is vintage Sen, drawing on several of his lifelong themes:

• Unidimensional moral reasoning is a mistake; moral judgment always requires balancing many goods. Just as raising GDP is too narrow, so is cutting carbon. “The recent focus of energy thinking has been particularly concentrated on the ways and means of reducing carbon emissions and, linked with that, cutting down energy use, rather than taking energy use as essential for conquering poverty and seeing the environmental challenge within a more comprehensive understanding.”
• The poorest people of the world are constantly overlooked. They need more resources, not less. “In India, for example, about a third of the people do not have any power connection at all. Making it easier to produce energy with better environmental correlates (and greater efficiency of energy use) may be a contribution not just to environmental planning, but also to making it possible for a great many deprived people to lead a fuller and freer life.”
• People have agency and freedom. They are capable of improving the world, and supporting their agency is generally the best way to help them. “The environment is not only a matter of passive preservation, but also one of active pursuit. Even though many human activities that accompany the process of development may have destructive consequences (and this is very important to understand and to address), it is also within human power to enhance and improve the environment in which we live.”
• Economics, technology, and politics interrelate; you cannot ignore politics when assessing an economy. For instance, we can imagine nuclear power being used safely, but that is like assuming that people will be rational enough to avoid war. We mustn’t forget “the risks of terrorism and sabotage (a strong possibility in countries such as India); the consequences of possible nuclear theft … ; and nuclear reactions that may be set off if and when a nuclear power plant is bombed or blasted with conventional weapons in a conventional war, or even in a rather limited local skirmish.”
• Development is liberating, as long as we define it broadly and do not reduce it to the pursuit of GDP. Growth is desirable, not sinful. “In general, seeing development in terms of increasing the effective freedom of human beings brings the constructive agency of people in environment-friendly activities directly within the domain of developmental efforts.”

I am guessing that Sen has in mind The Population Bomb (1968) and debates of that era. Paul Ehrlich argued that the earth faced imminent catastrophe because of population growth. There were too many people, especially in the poorest countries, and they were using up finite resources of food, water, energy, and space.

As a result of such thinking, some developing countries imposed illiberal and undemocratic controls on population–not only communist China, but also India during the State of Emergency. These were the problems with that approach:

• The diagnosis was wrong. With increasing demand, resources have been used more efficiently. India’s population has tripled since 1960, but its rate of malnutrition is less than half as high. Overpopulation has costs, but it is not a “bomb.”
• The ethics was wrong. Poor people were treated as a problem, as fundamentally undesirable. They were not treated with dignity.
• The politics was dangerous. Governments used population control to justify tyranny. As Sen famously noticed, famines never occur in representative democracies but are common under colonial rule and dictatorships, including the very tyrannies that control population growth.
• The solution was wrong because it ignored agency and freedom. It turned out that the best way to reduce the pace of population growth was to educate and empower women, because then they had alternatives to bearing many children.

Perhaps Paul Ehrlich was the boy who cried “wolf,” and now a real wolf is at the door. Over-consumption is somewhat self-correcting because prices rise with rising demand, but carbon emissions have no price. So climate change could be a worse problem than over-consumption caused by population growth. If we are at severe risk of global environmental catastrophe, then Sen’s concerns seem misplaced, and we may regret that a Nobel laureate with progressive credentials published an article headed “Stop Obsessing About Global Warming.”

But if we learn from the previous crisis, then we should address the climate crisis in a different way. We should consider the severe costs and risks of carbon emissions along with other problems, such as poverty and lack of democracy. A top priority should be helping the poorest people in the world to use more energy with less carbon emissions. We should support them in exploiting solar power and alternatives like “biochar.” Finally, we should not treat human beings as sin in the Garden of Eden and try to minimize their impact. Sen writes:

The environment is sometimes seen—simplistically, I believe—as the ‘state of nature,’ including such measures as the extent of forest cover, the depth of the ground water table, the number of living species, and so on. It is tempting to go from there to the conclusion that the best environmental planning is one of least interference, of leaving nature alone—that the urgent need is for inaction, rather than for actions that may be best supported by reasoning.

Sen’s vision is a deeply humanistic one, in which all people have dignity and the capacity to improve the world, including the natural world. Again, that would be the wrong case to make right now if climate change poses an unprecedented threat to our very survival. Then we should be trying to persuade governments to regulate carbon–end of case. But we can’t literally make governments do what we want. So the real question is not whether states should focus narrowly on carbon (which they won’t do, anyway), but rather: How should environmental activists pose this issue? Should they try to raise the odds of significant regulation by using apocalyptic and unidimensional language about climate change? Or should rather adopt a more balanced rhetoric, in which growth is desirable but carbon has costs?

The post Sen on climate change appeared first on Peter Levine.