Religion and operant conditioning.

(This is a post I started writing back in March, then never quite finished and have only just come back to. But we get there eventually!)

The other day at uni (yes, I’m back at uni! I might blog more about that another time) I was reminded of operant conditioning. For those that aren’t familiar with it, operant conditioning is a part of behavioural theory, notably worked on by Skinner. (You might have heard of his box.) The basic idea is that you can influence and change the behaviour of someone through positive or negative reinforcement and punishment (positive and negative here meaning giving or removing something, not good or bad). A classic example, for instance, is potty training - you want a child (or a pet) to learn how to toilet in a particular way, and so you train for that and reward that.

And we see this sort of thing all over the place, particularly with kids, whether it be in teaching or parenting. And the note was specifically, you know, we need to be careful about how we use this, because this isn’t considering any underlying reasons for a behaviour. And my mind immediately jumped to another example - religion.

Religion does this so much. Don’t do this, it’s a sin. Don’t do that, you’ll make God sad, or angry. Stop doing that or you’ll go to hell. Do this to be saved, do this to go to heaven.

As I mentioned earlier, this isn’t great 😅 the stakes are basically the biggest they can be. And so it kinda removes people’s free will, in a sense - which is a rather big thing! Religion creates this environment where there’s these very clear sets of behaviours that are accepted and encouraged, and others that are very much not. It’s creating - and enforcing - conformity.

That’s not healthy for people. And obviously religions don’t all do this in as strong a sense as others, and it will vary from community to community. But by and large - there’s a strong amount of shaping people into specific behaviours. And particularly when people grow up in this framework - it shapes your brain. In a very real way. Obviously I'm talking from a Christian background and upbringing, so that's the context I know and am more familiar with. But I wonder if it's possible for religion to be free of this way of doing things, or if it's ingrained to how religion functions.

Of course, it's not just religion that does this. Society at large, and communities in various places, do it as well, whether consciously or unconsciously. Fads and crazes often play into this psychology - do this thing, get rewarded for it, it will make you feel good, be accepted by other people, etc. And it's a tricky thing to watch out for, even when it's something that you might have heard of before. Because we like the reward! And we don't like getting punished. And that's okay. Just because there's a reward/punishment system in place for something doesn't mean that it's inherently untrustworthy, malicious, or bad. It's more about how it's used, the messaging around it, and what it's trying to get you to do.

I guess the important point to get out of this is to question things. Am I doing this because I actually want to do it myself, or am I just doing it to get a reward, or avoid a punishment? Being more aware of that happening, questioning that, being okay with stepping outside of that when we don't want to engage with those systems; even if that can make life harder at times.

500 Scientists UN Letter: A Response

NB: Long post.

Recently, I've seen a few people posting about a recent letter, apparently sent from 500 scientists to the UN on the same day that Greta Thunberg made her speech to the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, with the letter saying that there was "no climate emergency". This raised alarm bells for me, so I did some searching. I quickly found that a grand number of sites were reporting on this, and going, "Oh goodness, isn't it amazing! People are ignoring real science! Look at this!" ....which is basically a good clue to dig a little deeper. There is an actual letter that was sent, it is real (as far as I can tell). I'll include a copy of the text below, in fact (which seems to be identical on all sites I've seen thus far).

Your Excellencies, 

There is no climate emergency. 

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. 

The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.

We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars! (listen to the other side)
Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting. 

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation. 

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic. 

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. 

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. 

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crop worldwide. 

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests. 

Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world. 

Our advice to political leaders is that science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the climate system, while politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by prioritizing adaptation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies. 

The undersigned ECD Ambassadors
Professor Guus Berkhout, The Netherlands
Professor Reynald Du Berger French, Canada
Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand
Viv Forbes, Australia
Professor Jeffrey Foss English, Canada
Morten Jødal, Norway
Rob Lemeire, Belgium
Professor Richard Lindzen, USA
Professor Ingemar Nordin, Sweden
Jim O’Brien, Republic of Ireland
Professor Alberto Prestininzi, Italy
Associate Professor Benoît Rittaud, France
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, Germany
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom

What was difficult to find was any response to this from the other side. I did find a post that had a look through the ambassadors list, and found a few shady characters (notably Richard Lindzen). They also found that many of them aren't really experts on the topic at all, and almost definitely have ulterior motives (i.e. being paid by the fossil fuel industry, or similar).

But that's not what I want to focus on. No, I want to focus on the points that they've made, and I want to refute them. With easily available data, that anyone can access and have a look at for themselves. (I will concede that I am relying heavily on www.skepticalscience.com, so if you consider them to be a bad source, you may think my arguments are void. However, they are very good at listing their sources, and being detailed and honest in their answers.) As a reminder, these are the basic points that they are arguing.

• Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
• Warming is far slower than predicted
• Climate policy relies on inadequate models
• CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters
• Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
• There is no climate emergency

Hopefully, by the end of this post, I will have shown somewhat conclusively that these are each incorrect on some level.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

This is an old argument from climate skeptics. It goes something along the lines of, "the Earth's temperature has fluctuated for millennia, this warming that we're experiencing is just part of that fluctuation". 

The first part of that sentence is true. The Earth's temperature has variated quite a bit in the past, and yes, we have had Ice Ages before. What's significant about now, and why scientists are saying this is different, is the speed and amount of that change. It's getting warmer faster, and at greater levels, than anything we have records for. Here's a handy infographic that gives you an idea, with sources.

So, while the Earth does naturally change in temperature, it doesn't naturally do it as much as it is now. And the amount it is doing now is alarming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

This is a classic of Lindzen himself, actually. You can see the long version here of why this statement is incorrect; essentially, though, claiming that warming is slower than predicted is ignoring a number of factors. When those factors are taken into account, then the warming matches the predictions quite well.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

The argument here is saying that we shouldn't base our economic plans on climate models that are uncertain or unreliable. We need concrete, definitive data to act on.

Again, read the fuller rebuttal here. But it's good to remember that we're talking about the future. It is, by definition, uncertain and unknown. Considering that, the climate models that we have and have been working with have been pretty darn good so far at predicting what's happening, with a high degree of certainty. The point about CO2, we will tackle momentarily.

CO2 is a plant food, the basis of all life on earth

Everybody knows that plants use CO2 to survive. This is actually why one of the big pushes you might be seeing at the moment from climate warriors is planting trees (which we should do more of!) - and so this is a clever argument, because it uses a nugget of truth.

However, while plants love CO2, it's clearly quite toxic to humans, and most other animal species, if it gets to higher concentrations. Higher amounts of CO2 are also increasing the warming effect, as detailed further here again. If we want to decrease our warming, we need to decrease our CO2 emissions, and increase our numbers of trees to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere that we've already put there.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

This one is almost observably false. There certainly has been an increase in both the number and intensity of natural disasters, as you can read about fairly quickly here (with a nice graph). A telling sign in Australia - where I live - is that each year, the "fire season" gets longer. We have a history of bushfires in Australia, and the "fire season" (usually just over summer) is when you get most of them. Each year, that season has been getting longer, and stretching through more of the year, leading the CEO of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre to say that there's now a danger year-round.

So the only way to say that global warming hasn't increased natural disasters, is to say that these are caused by something else. But that seems very unlikely. As this page goes into detail on, more and more indications are pointing to the likelihood that these are the result of climate change, or that climate change will result in effects like those we are seeing.

Policy must respect scientific and economic realities

This is basically putting the focus back on money. It's saying, "we have no reason to panic - and if we do this now, we're pouring money down the drain." This is where I will come back briefly to the note I made before this, that several of these scientists may be being backed by fossil fuel companies. And indeed, if we go down this path, they are going to lose money. Big money. They're the ones that stand to lose the most, and have known as much for a long time, and have been intentionally fighting against efforts to reduce climate change.

To answer the point more directly, though - it really comes down to whether you think this is an emergency, or just a serious issue, or not an issue at all. If it's the former, then any economic loss in the short-term is mitigated by the prevention of catastrophic loss that would have happened. If it's the middle, then there's good evidence to say that climate change policies, such as putting limits on carbon emissions, only have a very minor impact on the economy, and an overall positive impact. And if you think that there's no issue, by now - then there's not much I can do to convince you, and you'll think that any spending of money on this is a waste.

There is no climate emergency

Many would disagree. Many would say, in fact, that we've already passed dangerous points, where there will be irreversible damage to the ecosystem. Depending on who you listen to, we may have no time at all, or a very short amount of time.

And when people hear that, it can be shocking. People don't want to hear that things are going to change, and get worse. People want to hear that it's all going to be normal, and they'll fight to preserve that normal. They'll fight to ignore or dismiss anything that might disrupt that normal. And that's what we see happening. We see people denying that anything is wrong, fighting to keep their 9-to-5 normality, fighting to keep economic stability, and shutting their ears to the doomsayers.

It's a psychological phenomenon that's well-documented, and it's called normalcy bias. It's kinda when you get the "freeze" response instead of the "fight" or "flight" ones, but it's not just an in-the-moment thing. It's also a mental attitude, and an issue with brain psychology. As in, it's normal for us to have! 

How do we break out of it? Generally, by someone else pulling us out. From someone else pointing out to us what's happening, the dangers, the situation that is around us. The truck that's rushing towards you, the plane that you're in having crashed, or the cyclone on the horizon. The problem is, climate change is much less visible, for the most part. People can't see it, and so they can feel like it's not real, or not important, or not urgent. It will be fine.

But unless we take some very real and serious action right now, no, it won't be.

Thanks for those that have read all of this and stuck with it for the long haul. Please be somewhat civil in the comments, if you decide to leave some. If you're looking for what to do next - check out Extinction Rebellion on Facebook. They typically have pages local to your country and/or state as well. They're generally pretty good at keeping on top of what's happening, and keeping people informed about developments, as well as encouraging and facilitating action (particularly in the face of very inactive governments).

Big Issues: Climate Change

Well, it's starting a bit late, but here we are!

For those that aren't in the know, I'm starting a new blog series - because why not? - looking at some of the big issues in the world today. I asked Facebook what they thought those were, and these are the ones they came up with. This series won't be so much trying to solve these issues; rather, it's looking more at trying to understand why these are such big issues for here and now.

Strangely enough, one of the ones that popped up was climate change. Global warming. All this fun stuff. And so that's what we'll be tackling first.

Now. I don't really want this post to be about proving that climate change and global warming are real things. Because if you can't figure that out by now, I don't know what's going to prove it to you. Natural disasters are going crazy, temperatures are very much misbehaving, and fossil fuel companies have been trying to cover it up for decades. But let's move on from that for now.

It's not too much to say that this may well be the biggest issue of our time. Within our lifetimes, we're likely going to see things around the world getting worse and worse, even if we start making some big changes right now (which probably won't happen). How bad are we talking? Well, given enough time (and what that amount of time is is still pretty up in the air at this point), it would be looking pretty similar to an extinction-level event. We're talking about whether or not the human race will even exist, in a few generations' time. Or at least, exist in the way we know it now. That's the seriousness we're looking at this with.

And perhaps there are some (though I hope not many) more conservative Christians that welcome this idea, and see it as the promised end times - the quicker we all die, the quicker Jesus comes back! Right?
Ahem. Rest assured, that is not where I stand on the issue of climate change. This an issue of tremendous weight that we have needed to combat with serious action for decades, and have done very little about. As such, we are starting to feel the repercussions.
It's starting to get to the level where I think there are probably people that are deciding not to have kids, because they see things only getting worse, and they don't want to raise children to face that future. (Not to mention the other things we'll be talking about over the rest of the series.) And I can understand that. Things are getting pretty crazy, and a lot of the time, they don't seem to be getting any better. Maybe we'll be able to fix it, maybe we won't - but right now, we don't really know. And that's a tough spot to be in.

But hey, let's not end on too negative a note. Let's find some things that we can do. These aren't solutions - but if enough people start doing them, maybe it will help a bit.
1. Eat less meat. This is actually a thing. Meat production is super-bad for the environment. If everyone ate less meat - we'd be doing a lot better. I'm not saying everyone should turn vegetarian (though it's much easier to do these days), but less meat is good. Just make sure you're doing it properly and getting your protein and everything! Eggs are awesome.
2. Don't just recycle. Particularly with China not accepting recycling as much any more, it's tricky to know what's happening with our recycling now, and that process of things. In some cases, depending on where you are, it may just be sitting in storehouses waiting for things to happen to it, or even going to the tip. As such, it's much, much better if you can re-use things as much as possible. Buying less plastic is always good, but hopefully you know that by now. And when you do recycle - please, do it properly. The right things in the right bin. Recycling contamination isn't good.
3. Make a little noise. I'm not very good at this - but if we keep letting our politicians know that this is a big issue for us, that this is the big issue for us, then they might actually agree to do something about it. We only have so much sway as individuals, so we need to get the people that can actually do things to start doing things, you know.

I'm sure other people can add other good things to that list, but there are three to start off with.
This was a tricky issue to start with, because it's both so big, but also rather obvious in many ways - at least, in terms of why it's an issue for our time. I mean, we kinda made it one, because we done goofed and all that jazz. Hopefully we'll be able to get a bit more nuance with some of the other posts to come.

In the meantime, feel free to comment below, and let me know if you like these sorts of posts. Maybe I'll do more!

UBImania!

For this one, we are going to dive into the future! Not sure how far, but a little ways at least. Maybe in our lifetime - maybe not. The idea we're looking at is something that I've heard a few people talking about lately, so thought that I'd give it a look. It's called a UBI - or Universal Basic Income. The basic idea is that everyone (that's the universal bit) gets a set amount of base (that's the basic bit) money (the income bit), no questions asked, regardless of whether they work or not, etc. Everyone. Now, various people have talked about how this might decrease people working; some countries have done trials, with good results; and as we look towards a time when more and more jobs are being done by machines, this may well become more and more needed.

But I don't so much want to look at the why of it all, the reasons for and against. Other people have done that extensively, and if you want to look that up, go ahead. Instead, I want to provide one suggestion as to how it could work. I'm not saying that this is the best way to do it; this may well not work at all. I don't know. It's just one thought that I've had, that I think is interesting to ponder.

So!

In this example, I want you to imagine that there is no other pay apart from the UBI. The UBI is the only way to get money/currency, unless you want to go into bartering. The UBI might be paid per day, per week, per month - it doesn't really matter. Let's say per week, for this instance.
So, each week, every person in this country gets two units of money. Before you say that that's a tiny amount - a unit could be anything. It could be $1000. It could be less. It could be more. For now, let's just assume that one unit is enough to get the average person through the week relatively easily. So when you go to buy something, it's measured in fractions of that unit - your rent might be 1/3 of a unit, or something. Now. I said you get two units.
One unit is keyed to your ID, some sort of unique identifying number or something. Only you can use it. The other unit, however, is the opposite - you have to give it away to someone else. And the same is true every week. There's probably a website you can go on, where different people show the work they're doing, and talk about why you should donate to them; and each week, you choose which one to donate that unit to. A person can never have more than a certain number of units (five, for example), and there might be some rule against repeatedly giving one person a unit each week.

Of course, you could try this with more than two units - say, keeping one unit and donating two if you have three, or maybe being able to donate fractions of units - but I like this idea. The idea that everyone has this basic income - but then you can still go and do a creative project, or a scientific project, etc, and essentially get other people to fund that. Now, I have no idea how things like businesses and such would work with this - but I think it's an interesting idea to consider.

Would love to know what you think :)