Wednesday, May 24, 2006

I'm Kim B... I'm your pusher

So, the Federal ALP has decided they are not in favour of nuclear power to solve Australia's power consumption woes and alleviate our shocking greenhouse gas emission levels. Obviously, they have considered nuclear power generation too dangerous, not cost effective, and a generally bad idea politically and environmentally.

But, good old Kimbo the White Elephant has given the green light to increase Uranium sales to other countries so they may use it for exactly that purpose. This kind of hypocrisy is usually only found in the seedy underworld of drug culture, and in fact, the parallels of behaviour are quite interesting.

A drug dealer, (let's say for argument's sake a heroin supplier), is usually not addicted to the product he sells. He has decided, for whatever reason, that using the drug he distributes is not a good idea. He is well aware of the risks involved, and the dangers, yet happily sells the substance to other people who are addicted to it, and cannot control their cravings for the substance.

Looking at the supply of uranium for power generation, we see that extremely rarely, if ever, has any country's power demand gone down over time. Global power use continues to rise over time, like a kind of addiction. The more people have, the more they want, in terms of power availability. We have a fuel supply for a system we have deemed too dangerous, but will happily sell it to other countries, while being fully aware of the risks.

A dealer may say he is not doing any harm, it is up to an individual to make their own decisions, and he is just meeting a demand in the marketplace, which would otherwise be filled by someone else. The government may use the exact same justification for the sale of uranium. The only difference being that the dealer doesn't clean up after his customers, while we are offering to be garbage collectors and dumping ground to the customers we would sell to. Shiploads of radioactive waste passing through some of the most populated areas on the planet doesn't seem like the most intelligent solution to any problem.

Do we want our national conscience tested in this way? Would we do the same with substandard produce, or drugs, or other materials? We would not, I hope. And yet this issue is being kicked about like it is just another political football. This has the potential for permanent environmental destruction on a local and regional scale. Where does our responsibility lay? With our balance of payments? Or concern for our fellow inhabitants of the earth?

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

The web, and how to sling it

I have had several heated discussions both online and in person with people about the communication with people in an online context, and subsequent meeting in a "close proximity" situation. There seems to be an irrational stigma attached to meeting people online, indeed, something wrong with anyone who would make first contact and arrange face to face meetings by this particular medium.

Personally, I can't see what all the fuss is about. I'm not talking about dating or sexual encounters (necessarily) just meeting likeminded people and finding common ground for entertainment and discussion. I have met more than a few people this way personally, and find only one distinction to set it aside from any other form of communication, that being the potential for initial anonymity.

A good many people have made my acquaintance through discussion boards based around various topics, mostly related to music. Not that I am a musician myself, I can be found at a live band at least once a week, usually more often. So, finding people on certain discussions with whom I had already spent considerable hours, though obviously without any direct communication, meeting them at a consequent show of a band we had discussed online is not that strange, as all parties involved are aware the others will be in the same venue for the same reason. Hell, we were probably going to be there anyway, now there's just someone to look for.

This is only one way such meetings may come about, but it is a good example. Some of these relationships have developed further, to the point where arrangements are made online for the sole purpose of each others' company. Such arrangements are usually on a larger scale, and many a party, barbecue and dinner have I attended on the basis of such proposals. When asked why I would want to spend time with "people I met on the internet", my immediate response was "Why not?"

I wonder with whom it is not weird to spend time with, and how they are met. Workmates? Pretty random way to meet people. Schoolmates? Equally random. Friends? Well, how do we make friends anyway? Surely, this is random. Spending time with one's family has a lot more obligation attached, but even this is a pretty random way to meet people, and you don't really have any choice in that at all.

I also considered whether making an arrangement to meet people by electronic communication was weird. Are interpersonal relationships only acceptably "normal" when made face to face? What about if it is by written correspondence? Or by putting up posters on street posts? Or by billboards? Or telephone? Text message? Smoke signal? Telegraph? Fax? Does it matter? I don't think so, and to all my friends I have met from the online community and stay in contact with by email, discussion board, blog comments, and personal message: I hold you in equal regard to those I have met in other, equally random circumstances.

I wonder if the first cave painters copped this much flak...

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Daydream Believer

Someone told me today I am always quick to shoot down the beliefs of others. I conceded that I probably am among the first to challenge beliefs which I don't share. I expect people to do the same to me, probably as a result of learning my trade as a scientist. But I was also careful to point out that it was nothing personal, I was questioning an idea, not a person who held the idea.

In science, I may draw a set of conclusions from the data set I am presented with through experimentation. When I present these conclusions to other scientists, I fully expect them to challenge my conclusions, question my assumptions, query the data on which I based them. That's science. Only by constant re-evaluation does science move in any direction. I think beliefs should be like that, too.

People make assumptions and draw conclusions based on the experience and environment in which they live. They make decisions about what they think is most appropriate, and reject concepts which they find to be unhelpful, or at odds with their existing belief set. Often they use their conclusions to defend their existing behaviour patterns when criticised.

When people tell me that I am quick to attack peoples opinions or beliefs, I admit that I am. But I am doing it explicitly. I am saying "I don't share your belief, and here are my reasons". People who have beliefs are doing the same thing. But without any transparency. To hold a belief, one makes a choice. To accept one explanation or method, and reject all others. This rejection is implicit, and stealthy. Even though I challenge people, I give them the opportunity to respond to, even attack, my thought processes. But rarely do they afford me the same courtesy.

I find it quite interesting that apparently I am in the wrong for challenging the publically stated beliefs of others, putting my thinking out in the open for discussion, attack, ridicule and analysis. While the believers quietly reject all other explanations, and hold their beliefs close, and their reasoning closer. How can we learn if everyone keeps secret their route to understanding of their chosen beliefs?