Is it really worth joining a political party?

Given the the laughable level of confidence most Southern Europeans have in their respective political systems it might seem surprising that I have been mulling over the prospect of joining a political party in my home country of Portugal.

"But why?" asks the concerned reader in you, and rest assured that it's a question I've asked myself more than once before sitting down to write this. After all, let's consider what someone would actually be able to accomplish by joining a political party. For starters, let's assume I don't see it as a simple route to personal power (which I promise you I don't. Trust me, it's not like I'm a member of a political party or anything...) and that I genuinely want to use it to spur positive change for as many people as possible. Given the very nature of political parties, the odds are stacked against me. Any noble intentions I might have stand a good chance of being whittled down as I make endless compromises to secure the support of my fellow party members. And for what? To complete objectives who probably wouldn't be able to recognize themselves in a mirror after all that wheeling and dealing?

Despite being faced with this rather pessimistic view, I believe Paul Rudd provides an eloquent response.

A criticism is only really worth the breath needed to say it if it comes with a solution. Political parties have become such an integral part of most democracies that any attempt to bring about change through government without them is going to run into some serious walls at best. Sure, staging a revolution could be another possibility, but anyone attempting to do so would sure as hell need a pretty clever alternative to replace the democratic system they'd just chucked out the window (not to mention that, historically, quite a few revolutions haven't had exactly what you'd call a well-considered follow-through). Now, I'm not saying that this is a reality that should or will last forever; resolving the problems that spring from political parties should be high up on the agenda of any society. However, what I will say is that the citizens of a democracy, somewhat ironically, have little choice in this matter. If we want to makes changes to and through our governments, joining a political party is our best bet.

Obviously, this leaves the issue of which political party to join, but I'm sure this post has given you enough fun for today, so I'll leave that issue for another time.

Book Review: Mining the Sky

During a trip to New York last year, I decided to visit the city's Museum of Natural History. Of course, it was no match for the Natural History Museum in London (a.k.a. my second home during my childhood), but it was definitely a worthwhile visit, not least due to an interesting exhibit on space travel which exposed me to this book:

After finally finding the time to do so, I turned its last page a few days ago. I will say that, in some respects, it wasn't quite my cup of tea. To summarize, the author, John S. Lewis, discusses the economic possibilities offered to us by outer space for increasing humankind's material and energy resources. Throughout the book, he argues that the mining of various celestial bodies (such as planets and asteroids) could provide us with the ingredients needed to fuel human civilization for decades, if not centuries, to come.

The planetary scientist himself

Despite my growing interest in the topic, several chapters of the book were lost on me due to their highly technical approach. Lewis spends a great deal of time referring to the geological and chemical nature of celestial bodies and the processes required to effective exploit them, which isn't surprising given his position as a professor of planetary science. Although the book was published in 1996 and could be seen as a bit dated, I'm sure its meticulous approach means the chemical and geological analysis is relevant even today. Unfortunately however, while his writing was usually clear enough to allow a layman such as myself to keep up with his arguments, a good understanding of Lewis' field of study would have been necessary to perform the sort of active, critical reading which the book clearly deserves. Moreover, when Lewis moves into discussing the social and political aspects of 'mining the sky', the resulting chapters seem tangential to the rest of the book. The sheer number of pages he dedicates to the scientific component of the topic makes his discussion of the human element seem shallow and lacking by comparison... and then you have some some parts where you can't help but think he really should've saved them for another book (see pages 249-250 for a brief discussion of the philosophical issues surrounding robotics and AI).

I don't want to come across as too harsh towards Mining the Sky though. The book is, after all, a piece of scientific literature at heart, and it would be unfair to judge it as anything else. Furthermore, I'm sure Lewis develops his discussion of the human side of the topic elsewhere (such as his own blog, see link below). The book's geological, chemical and economic analyses are broad and all-encompassing. It provides the reader with a serious introduction to the topic, but preserves the element of the fantastic which makes space exploration so fascinating.

The book's greatest accomplishment, I feel, lies in its capacity to stimulate interest. Granted, I'm biased with a preexisting disposition towards this stuff, but the predictions which Lewis makes in his work inevitably invite questioning and critical thought. For instance, one of the book's central arguments states that the incentive to mine celestial bodies for alternative sources of energy will increase as fossil fuel reserves on earth begin to dwindle. However, I find that this argument does not sufficiently consider current research into renewable energy sources; research which already benefits from growing political support and could certainly offset our desire to grab a shovel and fly off towards the nearest asteroid. Mining the Sky might not be for everyone, but the topic it discusses can certainly spark anyone's interest.

Click here to go to John S. Lewis' Blog

Movie Review: Oblivion

[SPOILER ALERT!]

Seriously, if you don’t want me to ruin Oblivion for you, don’t read the rest of this post. Or do. Whatever. Have it your way. Jack Harper would be proud of you.

It’s good to be writing here again after eons of neglect. I probably could’ve picked a better time to do this than exam period, but then I figured that, seeing as they both involve writing, composing a blog post and revision is effectively the same thing. Conscience cleared.

I was initially quite sceptical about Oblivion. I don’t hold Tom Cruise’s acting ability (or life choices) in the highest regard, but the whole sci-fi theme managed to hook me. After getting through the first 10 minutes of the film, characterised primarily by a robotic performance from Mr. Cruise, his acting began to shape up, along with the rest of the movie. I left the cinema quite impressed with the film.

Seriously. Just look at that cape.

And it wasn’t just Morgan Freeman’s badass cape which impressed me; the film was actually able to dish out a little food for thought.

Spoilers ahead! Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Director Joseph Kosinski kicks off the movie with a dream sequence in which Jack Harper (Cruise) struggles to remember his past in a manner not unlike your average tequila enthusiast. When Harper wakes up, we are introduced to his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) and their swanky pad, which I can only describe as Apple’s latest product, the iHouse. Between all this, Harper conveniently fills us in on the backstory.

The Earth has been ruined as the result of a nuclear war between humanity and an alien race known as the ‘Scavengers’, who apparently thought the best way of say “Greetings!” was to blow up the moon (not kidding). In somewhat blazing efficiency, the remnants of the human population were relocated to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons. To ensure the survival of the species, we began sucking up the Earth’s oceans with rigs which and used the water to fuel fusion reactors to provide us with energy (because everybody hates it when a little nuclear war knocks out the WiFi). Harper and Victoria remained on Earth as a glorified maintenance crew for the rigs; their efforts co-ordinated by a shiny space station known as the ‘Tet’. But wait! To make sure they didn’t leak any information to the Scavengers who survived on Earth, both Harper and Victoria had their entire memory prior to their mission erased.

Super-fun twist time!

Harper discovers that the Scavengers who roam the Earth are, in fact, the planet’s human survivors! Humanity never waged a war against hordes of alien invaders. Humanity actually got its ass handed to it by the Tet, which is revealed to possess AI (Skynet anyone?). Harper and Victoria’s retirement plan on Titan is but one of the space station’s many deceptions. Another big one is that the pair are in fact clones of human astronauts abducted by the Tet and brainwashed into turning the spanners on its rigs, which are actually sucking up seawater for its own energy purposes.

Don’t worry if the idea that the near-destruction of the human race was caused by an unmanned space station left your head spinning slightly. There’s more to the story than that, but I’ll leave it for now.

Apparently the rigs were designed by Apple too.

One part of the plot which I thought was actually quite well done was the role of the Titan survivor colony. Initially, Harper’s maintenance of the rigs stems from the idea that they are being used to power humanity’s efforts, which he will eventually be able to enjoy when he retires to Titan. I thought this bore a neat resemblance to the way actually manage/mindlessly consume our resources in the present, as if we too have a nice moon we can all retire to when things run out on Earth. Of course, Harper realises he was wasting his time when he discovers that Titan was just one of the Tet’s big fat lies. Unfortunately for us, we won’t have a shiny orbital scapegoat to pin things on after we’ve consumed every last resource on the planet. Once we’re out, we’re out. No Titan to save the day.

Another part of the film which I thought was quite interesting was the characters of Harper and Victoria. To me, they seemed to represent two opposing forces in our minds. Harper’s the force that questions things, and ultimately unravels the truth about that big ol’ phony space station. On the other hand, Victoria’s the force that happily obeys orders and tells Harper to stop dicking about before he ruins their vacation to Camp Titan. Even though Harper’s the hero of the story, it made me wonder how often one force ‘wins’ over the other, and which one usually does the winning.

All in all, not a bad run from Oblivion in the philosophy race. You could say I read a little too much into the movie, and you’re probably right. What can I say? As a history student, reading a little too much into things is kind of my specialty.   

Kony 2012 vs. Invisible Children

I’ll be frank, whatever the Invisible Children filmmakers did, it worked. I cried watching the Kony 2012 documentary, and, in a surge of emotion, carefully typed in my credit card number and ordered a Kony 2012 Action Pack.

Only afterwards did I decide to actually do some research on the topic, and what I discovered made me want to kick myself. For example, a short blog post written by Grant Oyston, a sociology and political science student at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada, expresses accusations of less-than savoury financial activity by the Invisible Children organization. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who’s squeaky-clean these days, but the possibility remains that the accusations are true and I was furious with myself for allowing their video to manipulate me in the way it did.

Oyston also describes Invisible Children’s strong support for the Ugandan Army and military action in general, citing a photo of the organization’s founders posing with Ugandan troops and weapons. While I think the photo itself is pretty pathetic and reminiscent of the behaviour of some of Facebook’s most braindead male users, I am not unsupportive of Invisible Children’s advocacy of military intervention, foreign or domestic. Joseph Kony has repeatedly failed to respond to diplomacy, leaving those affected by his atrocities, as well as the international community, with few remaining options.

I would like to return to Invisible Children’s financial misdemeanours, since they almost led to me booting myself in the skull. However, as I put on my heaviest shoe and prepared to perform a feat of gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete (or a Jackass member), I realized something: people and ideas are discrete categories. We are not prohibited, by any law whatsoever, from separating a noble idea (such as the Kony 2012 campaign) from its questionable origin (the Invisible Children organization). As such, it is entirely possible (and in my view, advisable) to support the Kony 2012 without supporting Invisible Children.

Oyston himself advocates something similar in his own blog post, urging us to “keep it about Joseph Kony, not KONY 2012.” I take his point, not least because of the strong manner in which Invisible Children associates itself with its own campaign. After all, how can we stick up posters which boldly proclaim “KONY 2012” and yet have “Invisible Children” strategically written below?

Nonetheless, I think it is entirely possible, and once again, advisable, to create some distance between Kony 2012 and Invisible Children. The Kony 2012 campaign has already gained so much momentum, it would be a waste of energy and an insult to all the noble-hearted individuals who helped drive it if we dismissed it altogether. But from this point onwards, let the Kony 2012 campaigners (myself included) explicitly state their disassociation from Invisible Children. Let us point to Invisible Children’s financial activities and state our disapproval. Rather than merely prompting defensive comments from Invisible Children, a large-scale disapproval from Kony 2012 supporters will urge the founders of the organization to clean up their act. We will be able to swiftly execute the internal reform needed to re-align the people with the idea, thereby emboldening both.

Whether you choose to buy Kony 2012 merchandise from Invisible Children is your call. If you are not comfortable doing it, don’t do it. Don’t let the absence of merchandise be a barrier between you and Kony 2012. The T-shirts are a bit overpriced anyway.

The link to Oyston’s blog is here: http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/

Resources and Space

Wandering around a shopping mall today got me thinking about the rate at which we humans consume the earth's resources. Even if we master the art of recycling and somehow manage to replace the earth's resources at the same rate that we consume them, our growing population will immediately upset that balance.

Even the very space we inhabit is limited, and if we choose to preserve some of the earth's natural areas (an endeavour I wholeheartedly support) we may soon find ourselves literally running out of room to live.

Short of culling the human population, our only recourse is to expand to new areas in which we can continue our growth. Below are some potential candidates, each more ridiculous than the last:

1. Tunnelling underground: The most reasonable solution. It is however only temporary, as the area beneath the earth's crust can only accomodate limited growth in a stable manner. We would soon find ourselves back where we started. Furthermore, this solution would not provide us with enough resources to continue our growth.

2. Underwater cities: Much like with the first option, this solution can only ever be temporary, since the earth's oceans can also only accomodate limited growth. This solution becomes even more impractical when we consider that the oceans also provide us with a tremendous proportion of the resources needed to sustain the human global population, and as such, building within them would limit their ability to replenish their resources. In addition, we should also be trying to preserve the oceans, rather than exploit them further.

3. Occupation of other planets: We have yet to discover a planet capable of sustaining human life, and yet this seems like the most reasonable option in the long run.

Discussing this issue does seem a little ridiculous at the moment. After all, our situation has not deteriorated to the point where humans need to explore the aforementioned options. However, resource shortages and overcrowding are current issues, and are poised to become more serious as time passes.

The Right Way To Deal With Debt

I'll confess right now, I have an appallingly limited understanding of economics and the current global crisis, which is why I'm going to resort to oversimplifications and generalizations in this post. You have been warned!

It seems to me that both left and right-wing political administrations have their own ways of dealing with a country's debt, each employing methods to directly and indirectly reduce debt levels.

Left: Tax increases (to directly pay back and reduce debt) and increased government spending (to stimulate economic growth and indirectly reduce debt).

Right: Tax cuts (to stimulate spending and economic growth and, as such, indirectly reduce debt) and reduced government spending (to directly prevent debt from increasing).

Now, from what I understand concerning the matter, it appears that the right-wing approach is actually more effective. The reduction in services (caused by reduced government spending) is negated by a growth of similar services provided by the private sector (which can afford to do so on account of the tax cuts). While the left-wing approach creates jobs through increased government spending, the increased taxes stifle spending and growth in the private sector, ultimately crippling economic growth and preventing the government from repaying the new debt incurred from its spending.

New World Order?

The more I look at the world, the more I come to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current world order. Call it capitalism, call it what you wish, a serious upheaval of the very way we think and the assumptions about the world that we take for granted, needs to take place.

And it won't require a little thinking outside of the box either. To generate an upheaval of such magnitude we will need to step so far out of the proverbial box that we will have practically left the building. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if such a revolutionary idea literally came to someone in their dreams.

Where to begin though?