Some people have an irrational fear of astrology and there can be many reasons, but as with anything irrational, those reasons are often unknown. I once sat in as a guest on a philosophy lecture on science and pseudoscience. The professor was in his second day of denouncing astrology to the students. After introducing the topic of astrology, the professor suddenly remembered that he forgot to mention something important about the term exam, so he interrupted his lecture and gave several warnings about the exam before resuming his lecture on why astrology is so irrational.
As you know, students fear exams. You don't have to be a expert on classical conditioning to understand that the professor's actions associated astrology with fear. The students will fear astrology and not even know where the fear came from. They will pass on that fear to others as it was passed to them and not even know that they are doing so.
Another time I was in a planetarium show with a class of students. The lights went low and the chairs elevated and reclined to a horizontal position. Our eyes became accustomed to gazing at the domed ceiling. As soon as we were relaxed, one of the planetarium directors entered the theater and began passionately denouncing astrology and challenging anyone to who believed in it, or even read their daily horoscope for fun. In those chairs, somewhat like massive dentists' chairs, you could barely lift your head to see the person speaking. You'd have to heave yourself out to address the director. No one was going to do that. It was more comfortable to just lie low and stay out of the line of fire. It was a psychological reinforcement of vulnerability and helplessness.
Once I was in a course given by a very popular psychology professor who had hundreds of students. Somehow he found out I had asked a question about astrology in a tutorial. He sent me a personal letter even though he was visiting another country on the weekend he found out. The letter warned me against astrology and that I would ruin my career and academic advancement. Students have every reason to believe this sort of warning. I really wish I had saved that letter, it was incredible.
I think the fear of astrology is just an irrationality that feeds on itself. People don't even know why they fear it. It is just something they learned at a tender age and the people they learned it from learned it themselves at a tender age from someone else and had passed on their fear.
These are the reasons why I wrote "The students' critical thinking guide to science and astrology". I tried to reach the target audience of students while speaking in the kind voice of a caring teacher.
As a footnote, as my paper was being peer-reviewed, a reviewer wrote to me that his daughter was taking a course on critical thinking in which astrology was attacked. Even though the reviewer was a leading astrological thinker, the daughter felt threatened and avoided any association with astrology. For university students, the stakes are high and fear is a strong motivator.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Reappraisal of 1985 Carlson study finds support for astrology
After nearly a quarter of a century, a small group of dedicated astrologers who participated in a scientific study that reached a devastating verdict against their craft may have something to feel good about. The study, published in 1985 in the journal of scientific record, Nature (vol. 318), launched its author, Shawn Carlson, then a graduate physics student at the University of California at Berkley, to instant celebrity among the community of scientific skeptics. A new assessment, however, “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests” in Journal of Scientific Exploration (vol. 23:2) by Suitbert Ertel, professor of psychology at Göttingen University, has found serious flaws in the study's analysis. In an astonishing turnaround, Ertel finds that, when correctly analyzed, the study's data actually provides support for astrology. It now appears that the reputation of the Carlson study as a definitive test against astrology is unjustified.
Suitbert Ertel is known for his analysis and criticism of statistical research on both sides of the science/astrology controversy. He is also known for his 1988 discovery, and later replications, of planetary eminence effects, which had been predicted by the late astrology researcher Michel Gauquelin. These eminence effects strongly support the traditional astrological properties of the tested planets and have presented an irrefutable conundrum for astrology skeptics.
In the introduction to his study, “A double-blind test of astrology,” Carlson states his intention to design “an experiment that would meet the tight specifications of both the scientific and astrological communities.” The main test in the study challenged the 28 astrologer participants to match the birth charts of 116 volunteer students with personality profiles from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), a standard personality questionnaire.
In Carlson’s assessment, the astrologers could not match birth charts to profiles any better than chance and therefore failed in their task. He concluded, “We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers.” In Ertel's reassessment, the astrologers were able to perform the matches significantly better than chance, even though they did not perform as well as they had predicted.
Because Carlson’s study was published in a highly regarded scientific journal, it is exceptional among astrology research papers. It has stood at the pinnacle of scientific recognition and easily ranks as the most frequently cited study of its kind (500+ Google links). A major contributor to the study’s credibility was the participation of qualified astrologers, all members of the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR), an organization that was active in astrology research.
When Carlson’s article appeared in Nature, it immediately drew fire from critics. Some of the astrologer participants protested that Carlson ignored their suggestions, contrary to his stated intention. Carlson had refused to supply the gender identities of the CPI profiles, a necessary consideration because the CPI makes crucial distinctions between male and female responses. The eminent psychologist Hans Eysenck, late author of the book Astrology: Science or Superstition, argued that the CPI explicitly states that it should be interpreted only by trained and experienced users, and the astrologers lacked the necessary qualification. Other critics questioned whether the CPI and astrology evaluate personality in the same ways, and whether there was enough common ground for astrologers to make valid matches. Over time the controversy subsided with neither side being dissuaded.
Eventually, some little-discussed facts concerning the Carlson study drew Ertel’s scrutiny. Normally, articles in Nature, or any scientific journal, are peer reviewed before publication. The peer review process subjects scientific beliefs and claims of fact to critical analysis by qualified experts. Yet, even though the Carlson study makes claims of scientific fact, it had not been peer reviewed. Nature had published the article as editorial content in the Commentary section, a detail that undoubtedly has been overlooked by countless authors who have cited the study and regarded it as definitive. Despite criticism of the Carlson study voiced elsewhere, Nature had never published any responses to the study and no thorough reanalysis had ever been done. Ertel, in his peer-reviewed reappraisal, finds the study to be flawed in test design, test power, effect size, and sample size.
The design of the Carlson study violates the demands of fairness, Ertel says, and even Carlson’s own stated protocol. Instead of presenting the astrologer participants with pair choices, which is the normal format for such tests, and the format followed in an earlier well-known astrological study by Vernon Clark (1961), Carlson presented a three-choice format, consisting of one genuine object and two selected at random. This three-choice format, Ertel notes, is less powerful than a two-choice format. Furthermore, Carlson’s random selections of the comparison objects produced avoidable similarities between the objects, which reduced discrimination and further elevated the three-choice problem. In fairness, he says, dissimilar objects should have been used throughout.
Ertel is also critical of Carlson’s piecemeal analysis of the sampled data, in which only sub-samples are examined instead of the total effects. The correct analysis for a three-choice format, Ertel asserts, is to calculate the proportion of combined first and second choices according to the normally accepted protocol. Carlson initially states his intention to do this but then disregards the protocol for no given reason. Re-analysis shows that the astrologers correctly matched CPI profiles to natal charts better than would be expected by chance with marginal significance (p = .054). This positive result, Ertel found, was replicable with even better results (p = .04) for the astrologers’ ten-point rating of profiles fit to birth charts, a procedure that Carlson requested of the astrologers but ignored in the end, again without giving reasons.
In Ertel’s assessment, the proper evaluation of the test data, according to research protocols that are commonly accepted to be the most fair and precise, gives two significant test results in favour of the astrologer participants. “The results are regarded as insufficient to deem astrology as empirically verified,” Ertel warns, “but they are sufficient to regard Carlson’s negative verdict on astrology as untenable.”
Famous Test of Astrology is Seriously Flawed
A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments
Reappraisal of 1985 Carlson study finds support for astrology
Suitbert Ertel is known for his analysis and criticism of statistical research on both sides of the science/astrology controversy. He is also known for his 1988 discovery, and later replications, of planetary eminence effects, which had been predicted by the late astrology researcher Michel Gauquelin. These eminence effects strongly support the traditional astrological properties of the tested planets and have presented an irrefutable conundrum for astrology skeptics.
In the introduction to his study, “A double-blind test of astrology,” Carlson states his intention to design “an experiment that would meet the tight specifications of both the scientific and astrological communities.” The main test in the study challenged the 28 astrologer participants to match the birth charts of 116 volunteer students with personality profiles from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), a standard personality questionnaire.
In Carlson’s assessment, the astrologers could not match birth charts to profiles any better than chance and therefore failed in their task. He concluded, “We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers.” In Ertel's reassessment, the astrologers were able to perform the matches significantly better than chance, even though they did not perform as well as they had predicted.
Because Carlson’s study was published in a highly regarded scientific journal, it is exceptional among astrology research papers. It has stood at the pinnacle of scientific recognition and easily ranks as the most frequently cited study of its kind (500+ Google links). A major contributor to the study’s credibility was the participation of qualified astrologers, all members of the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR), an organization that was active in astrology research.
When Carlson’s article appeared in Nature, it immediately drew fire from critics. Some of the astrologer participants protested that Carlson ignored their suggestions, contrary to his stated intention. Carlson had refused to supply the gender identities of the CPI profiles, a necessary consideration because the CPI makes crucial distinctions between male and female responses. The eminent psychologist Hans Eysenck, late author of the book Astrology: Science or Superstition, argued that the CPI explicitly states that it should be interpreted only by trained and experienced users, and the astrologers lacked the necessary qualification. Other critics questioned whether the CPI and astrology evaluate personality in the same ways, and whether there was enough common ground for astrologers to make valid matches. Over time the controversy subsided with neither side being dissuaded.
Eventually, some little-discussed facts concerning the Carlson study drew Ertel’s scrutiny. Normally, articles in Nature, or any scientific journal, are peer reviewed before publication. The peer review process subjects scientific beliefs and claims of fact to critical analysis by qualified experts. Yet, even though the Carlson study makes claims of scientific fact, it had not been peer reviewed. Nature had published the article as editorial content in the Commentary section, a detail that undoubtedly has been overlooked by countless authors who have cited the study and regarded it as definitive. Despite criticism of the Carlson study voiced elsewhere, Nature had never published any responses to the study and no thorough reanalysis had ever been done. Ertel, in his peer-reviewed reappraisal, finds the study to be flawed in test design, test power, effect size, and sample size.
The design of the Carlson study violates the demands of fairness, Ertel says, and even Carlson’s own stated protocol. Instead of presenting the astrologer participants with pair choices, which is the normal format for such tests, and the format followed in an earlier well-known astrological study by Vernon Clark (1961), Carlson presented a three-choice format, consisting of one genuine object and two selected at random. This three-choice format, Ertel notes, is less powerful than a two-choice format. Furthermore, Carlson’s random selections of the comparison objects produced avoidable similarities between the objects, which reduced discrimination and further elevated the three-choice problem. In fairness, he says, dissimilar objects should have been used throughout.
Ertel is also critical of Carlson’s piecemeal analysis of the sampled data, in which only sub-samples are examined instead of the total effects. The correct analysis for a three-choice format, Ertel asserts, is to calculate the proportion of combined first and second choices according to the normally accepted protocol. Carlson initially states his intention to do this but then disregards the protocol for no given reason. Re-analysis shows that the astrologers correctly matched CPI profiles to natal charts better than would be expected by chance with marginal significance (p = .054). This positive result, Ertel found, was replicable with even better results (p = .04) for the astrologers’ ten-point rating of profiles fit to birth charts, a procedure that Carlson requested of the astrologers but ignored in the end, again without giving reasons.
In Ertel’s assessment, the proper evaluation of the test data, according to research protocols that are commonly accepted to be the most fair and precise, gives two significant test results in favour of the astrologer participants. “The results are regarded as insufficient to deem astrology as empirically verified,” Ertel warns, “but they are sufficient to regard Carlson’s negative verdict on astrology as untenable.”
Famous Test of Astrology is Seriously Flawed
A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments
Reappraisal of 1985 Carlson study finds support for astrology
Monday, July 6, 2009
Nostradamus 2012 End of Time
Nostradamus 2012 is a TV program about December 21, 2012 prophesies. That date, or thereabouts, is said to be the end of the Mayan calendar. The program reels through all sorts of recent natural and man-made disasters, pointing to the ticking time bomb of anticipated earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, climate change, global famine, pole shift, and other disasters that await humankind. The program attempts to support its predictions of these disasters with the writings of Nostradamus and the symbolism in some recently discovered drawings attributed to Nostradamus.
According to this program, the main event that would trigger these disasters is the alignment of the galactic center with the Capricorn solstice, hence the December 21st date. The sun would "eclipse" the galactic center at the solstice point.
I agree with the program's use of the galactic center for the accurate measurement of the 25,800 cycle historically known as "precession of the equinoxes" and the Great Year. In astrology, however, the equinoxes and solstices, as the defining points of celestial longitude, should represent a fixed frame of reference in the sky. Everything should be seen as moving within celestial longitude, including the galactic center and the constellations.
It should not be relevant which constellation is at the Aries equinox because constellations, unlike individual stars, are irrelevant in astrology. The main point of interest in the great-year cycle should be the movement of galactic center, a precise point like each of the planets, within the framework of celestial longitude. The so-called Age of Aquarius, which attempts to use constellations as aggregate bodies, is a departure from any sort of reasonable or traditional astrology.
The Nostradamus 2012 program commits the astronomical error of using the 2012 date as the critical alignment. The galactic center does not actually align with the Capricorn solstice until the year 2295. The program tries to extend the initial concept of the end of the Mayan calendar into all sorts of unrelated areas in an attempt to connect them to the major changes we currently see on our planet.
Climate change is already wreaking havoc and will continue to do so until humankind does something to stop it. It is much too big a stretch to associate the year 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar with the galactic center alignment to the Capricorn solstice, which will not happen until 2295, almost three hundred years hence.
According to this program, the main event that would trigger these disasters is the alignment of the galactic center with the Capricorn solstice, hence the December 21st date. The sun would "eclipse" the galactic center at the solstice point.
I agree with the program's use of the galactic center for the accurate measurement of the 25,800 cycle historically known as "precession of the equinoxes" and the Great Year. In astrology, however, the equinoxes and solstices, as the defining points of celestial longitude, should represent a fixed frame of reference in the sky. Everything should be seen as moving within celestial longitude, including the galactic center and the constellations.
It should not be relevant which constellation is at the Aries equinox because constellations, unlike individual stars, are irrelevant in astrology. The main point of interest in the great-year cycle should be the movement of galactic center, a precise point like each of the planets, within the framework of celestial longitude. The so-called Age of Aquarius, which attempts to use constellations as aggregate bodies, is a departure from any sort of reasonable or traditional astrology.
The Nostradamus 2012 program commits the astronomical error of using the 2012 date as the critical alignment. The galactic center does not actually align with the Capricorn solstice until the year 2295. The program tries to extend the initial concept of the end of the Mayan calendar into all sorts of unrelated areas in an attempt to connect them to the major changes we currently see on our planet.
Climate change is already wreaking havoc and will continue to do so until humankind does something to stop it. It is much too big a stretch to associate the year 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar with the galactic center alignment to the Capricorn solstice, which will not happen until 2295, almost three hundred years hence.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Orwellian Response to Compensation Abuse
These tough economic times and the abuses of bonus compensation are having bizarre consequences. Something has stopped the bonuses, at least for people down at my level. Businesses need cost-saving innovations more than ever now, but won't offer incentives or the research funding and resources to develop them.
The corporate gurus tell us there are three motivators - fear, financial incentive, and growth. We are told that fear and financial incentives are similar. These motivators are limited because you need to keep elevating them to continue to make them work. After a while, people have so much fear, or so much money(!), that these motivators fail to motivate anymore. (Funny, in America it's always been about money.) Supposedly, only growth is unlimited. Has something changed?
So, in this new Orwellian double-speak, money is fear! This is Big Brother speaking. Think about this for a moment. Where are things going in the "New World Order" we keep hearing about?
My team has a great, money-saving innovation we've been trying to develop. But we don't get any extra time to develop it, and the regular workload is crushing because now we are all micromanaged (another new thing - Orwellian knee-jerk reaction to the recession - the watchful eye is upon us), and we can only develop our innovation for "growth"! In the high tech industry, micromanagement is total evil. The more you micromanage, the longer the programs take. Folks, we might be going from bad to worse.
The corporate gurus tell us there are three motivators - fear, financial incentive, and growth. We are told that fear and financial incentives are similar. These motivators are limited because you need to keep elevating them to continue to make them work. After a while, people have so much fear, or so much money(!), that these motivators fail to motivate anymore. (Funny, in America it's always been about money.) Supposedly, only growth is unlimited. Has something changed?
So, in this new Orwellian double-speak, money is fear! This is Big Brother speaking. Think about this for a moment. Where are things going in the "New World Order" we keep hearing about?
My team has a great, money-saving innovation we've been trying to develop. But we don't get any extra time to develop it, and the regular workload is crushing because now we are all micromanaged (another new thing - Orwellian knee-jerk reaction to the recession - the watchful eye is upon us), and we can only develop our innovation for "growth"! In the high tech industry, micromanagement is total evil. The more you micromanage, the longer the programs take. Folks, we might be going from bad to worse.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism
A recent newspaper carried an article, "The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism," which contrasted the different views of what the vernal equinox means to an astronomer and an astrologer. The article, posted on the newspaper's web site, drew criticism from some members of the public for taking astrology seriously and giving it credibility. I would like to attempt to clarify and amplify the astrological view.
The vernal equinox is one of two places in the sky near which the planets spend an equal amount of time above the horizon as below during the course of a day. Astronomically, the equinoxes represent points of equilibrium. Astrologically, the equinoxes represent an axis of equality. This axis of equality is to be contrasted with the axis of extremes or hierarchy, which is represented by the summer and winter solstices. These two axes are natural symmetries that define the framework of tropical signs used in Western astrology.
When the planets in their cycles cross this axis of equality, the planetary urges, acting from within individuals and collectively in society, are thought to express values of equality, as distinct from the values of hierarchy, which are represented by the solstices. There are two ways in which values of equality can be expressed. We can value cooperation and we can value competition among equals. The vernal equinox is thought to be the point where competition is most highly valued, whereas the autumnal equinox is thought to be the point where cooperation is most highly valued.
Planets near the vernal equinox tend to reflect the values of competition in our corresponding interests and desires, which are to break down old hierarchical values to create a new order, whether on the personal, social, or collective level, depending on the planet involved. Initiatives for the new order may potentially be expressed through fitness programs, performances, competitions, innovations, explorations, or any pioneering effort. As a planet passes over the vernal equinox, a new hierarchy of values begins through competition. This emerging hierarchy will later peak for that planetary urge when it arrives at the summer solstice.
The vernal equinox is one of two places in the sky near which the planets spend an equal amount of time above the horizon as below during the course of a day. Astronomically, the equinoxes represent points of equilibrium. Astrologically, the equinoxes represent an axis of equality. This axis of equality is to be contrasted with the axis of extremes or hierarchy, which is represented by the summer and winter solstices. These two axes are natural symmetries that define the framework of tropical signs used in Western astrology.
When the planets in their cycles cross this axis of equality, the planetary urges, acting from within individuals and collectively in society, are thought to express values of equality, as distinct from the values of hierarchy, which are represented by the solstices. There are two ways in which values of equality can be expressed. We can value cooperation and we can value competition among equals. The vernal equinox is thought to be the point where competition is most highly valued, whereas the autumnal equinox is thought to be the point where cooperation is most highly valued.
Planets near the vernal equinox tend to reflect the values of competition in our corresponding interests and desires, which are to break down old hierarchical values to create a new order, whether on the personal, social, or collective level, depending on the planet involved. Initiatives for the new order may potentially be expressed through fitness programs, performances, competitions, innovations, explorations, or any pioneering effort. As a planet passes over the vernal equinox, a new hierarchy of values begins through competition. This emerging hierarchy will later peak for that planetary urge when it arrives at the summer solstice.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Is there good in the recession?
Recession is not all bad and we can learn from the history of past recessions. Recessions happen because we resist change and persist with habits that have become harmful. With recession, the economic growth for certain things comes to an end and the receding economy makes us painfully aware of exposures and areas of neglect that need our attention and responsible effort.
It has often been observed that the fashion of women’s hemlines moves up and down with the economy. Over this past winter hemlines on evening wear worn by fashion leaders dramatically hit the floor. But everyday wear for most women in America today is jeans or pants and dresses and skirts are not normally seen. So what happens this time? The fashion trend seems to suggest modesty and responsibility. Does this mean that tight jeans are out and the relaxed fit is in? Will more men start wearing suits and fully brimmed hats again as in previous recessions? Long dresses and coats and big hats are not convenient for driving cars, but they are ideal for waiting at the bus stop and walking on foot. Will walking and taking public transit increase during the recession?
It has been said also that people eat healthier diets during recessions and that national health improves. This is a very good thing, and it is much overdue because so many Americans are overweight and don’t exercise enough. Better diet is adopted during recessions because more meals are prepared from scratch. Although less convenient, home cooking is more economical than serving packaged foods or dining out. As more food is prepared in the home, more attention is paid to the quality of food ingredients. Instead of high-calorie fast food with artificial ingredients, healthier, locally grown food is desired. More people are even buying seeds and planting their own gardens. The more that good meals are planned and become a relaxed social focus of the day, the more family values could improve. Can you picture Michele Obama planting a vegetable garden at the White House for her family's use? Yes, this is happening, and the President himself will be expected to pull weeds. Food is of crucial importance to health and maybe it’s good to have a real involvement in how it is grown and prepared.
One of the big questions during the current recession is whether economic stimulus should be given to the big corporations that are dramatically failing. Shouldn't these corporations be left to fail because they didn't pay attention the economic patterns and they ignored the indicators of necessary change? Didn’t the leaders of these corporations fail to keep their corporations secure? If the corporate leaders failed, then why should those leaders still receive fat bonuses, paid for by government? Aren't these the people who some Canadian politicians in the 1970s identified as "corporate welfare bums?" If these corporate leaders don’t get their bonuses and want to leave their current positions for positions elsewhere that they believe will pay them better, why not let them just leave? Isn't it only by the failure of irresponsible corporate governance and policy that the more responsible governance and policies, which are more in tune with the current economic needs, will have a chance to succeed?
Are environmental pressures are at the root of the recession? Doesn't the global economy need to urgently create and introduce now the programs and products that have been neglected, and should have been developed for sustainability? There seems to have been a profound shift away from the policies and politics of claiming and securing scarce resources, which is the old unsustainable way, to developing alternative and more sustainable resources. Why stimulate the continuation of large corporate growth when that growth is unsustainable? Why not restrict that growth and channel investment into the emergent economy of sustainable development?
Recently, there seems to be renewed interest in smaller houses and higher population densities. It appears that more people actually want tiny houses, whether they live in the city or in the country. Tiny houses are more affordable. If the community is planned accordingly, small houses could allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, and do other activities outside the home. People could walk or bicycle to these places, as well as to transportation nodes that connect then to other communities. Don't family values in the home need to be sustained by strong social networks outside the home? Moving housing closer together could strengthen social and community bonds. With the Internet and mobile phones, we have new electronic means of interacting with family, friends, and business contacts, but there’s really no substitute for actual face-to-face interactions. Isn't it better for people to be nearer to the people they would normally socialize with?
It has often been observed that the fashion of women’s hemlines moves up and down with the economy. Over this past winter hemlines on evening wear worn by fashion leaders dramatically hit the floor. But everyday wear for most women in America today is jeans or pants and dresses and skirts are not normally seen. So what happens this time? The fashion trend seems to suggest modesty and responsibility. Does this mean that tight jeans are out and the relaxed fit is in? Will more men start wearing suits and fully brimmed hats again as in previous recessions? Long dresses and coats and big hats are not convenient for driving cars, but they are ideal for waiting at the bus stop and walking on foot. Will walking and taking public transit increase during the recession?
It has been said also that people eat healthier diets during recessions and that national health improves. This is a very good thing, and it is much overdue because so many Americans are overweight and don’t exercise enough. Better diet is adopted during recessions because more meals are prepared from scratch. Although less convenient, home cooking is more economical than serving packaged foods or dining out. As more food is prepared in the home, more attention is paid to the quality of food ingredients. Instead of high-calorie fast food with artificial ingredients, healthier, locally grown food is desired. More people are even buying seeds and planting their own gardens. The more that good meals are planned and become a relaxed social focus of the day, the more family values could improve. Can you picture Michele Obama planting a vegetable garden at the White House for her family's use? Yes, this is happening, and the President himself will be expected to pull weeds. Food is of crucial importance to health and maybe it’s good to have a real involvement in how it is grown and prepared.
One of the big questions during the current recession is whether economic stimulus should be given to the big corporations that are dramatically failing. Shouldn't these corporations be left to fail because they didn't pay attention the economic patterns and they ignored the indicators of necessary change? Didn’t the leaders of these corporations fail to keep their corporations secure? If the corporate leaders failed, then why should those leaders still receive fat bonuses, paid for by government? Aren't these the people who some Canadian politicians in the 1970s identified as "corporate welfare bums?" If these corporate leaders don’t get their bonuses and want to leave their current positions for positions elsewhere that they believe will pay them better, why not let them just leave? Isn't it only by the failure of irresponsible corporate governance and policy that the more responsible governance and policies, which are more in tune with the current economic needs, will have a chance to succeed?
Are environmental pressures are at the root of the recession? Doesn't the global economy need to urgently create and introduce now the programs and products that have been neglected, and should have been developed for sustainability? There seems to have been a profound shift away from the policies and politics of claiming and securing scarce resources, which is the old unsustainable way, to developing alternative and more sustainable resources. Why stimulate the continuation of large corporate growth when that growth is unsustainable? Why not restrict that growth and channel investment into the emergent economy of sustainable development?
Recently, there seems to be renewed interest in smaller houses and higher population densities. It appears that more people actually want tiny houses, whether they live in the city or in the country. Tiny houses are more affordable. If the community is planned accordingly, small houses could allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, and do other activities outside the home. People could walk or bicycle to these places, as well as to transportation nodes that connect then to other communities. Don't family values in the home need to be sustained by strong social networks outside the home? Moving housing closer together could strengthen social and community bonds. With the Internet and mobile phones, we have new electronic means of interacting with family, friends, and business contacts, but there’s really no substitute for actual face-to-face interactions. Isn't it better for people to be nearer to the people they would normally socialize with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
