People don't debate the physics of the gun. Sure they debate who should have them, but what Republican would stand up and argue with you about what usually happens when you pull the trigger on a loaded gun? So why this bizarre rejection of science all of a sudden when it comes to the climate?
Right now the United States of America leads the world in many ways. For that reason the world looks to us to look out for ourselves and them, which may to some extent be misguided. But nonetheless it is a responsibility that requires sober consideration of consequences if we are a horrible leader.
If you make the bet against climate science, and you're wrong it's like looking down the barrel of a loaded gun thinking your opinion matters.
I doubt any Republican or any climate denier would dare.
So why pick on Republicans here?
Because more so than any other party they claim to be conservative when their bet could be considered traitorous to this nation. No true conservative would so dare.
They need to be called on reality.
Throughout human history, plenty of people have bet against science. Some have confronted guns certain in their faith.
The guns won.
Science is a tool. Leadership demands that you respect reality, not play pretend, not dream of a fantasy that you wish were true.
Reality dictates. We just live in this reality.
When you start wishing on a prayer to save you, then don't be surprised when reality blasts you out of existence. Oh, maybe when you get to Heaven you can argue with God about what happened to you, if that's where you're going.
Here on planet Earth, the true leaders will be making the right decisions. Because that's what the best leaders do.
You may not like guns, but you respect them, if you understand reality.
And before it's all over, humanity will learn respect for climate reality too. I guarantee it.
So you make that bet against the science of the climate. Science will win.
But whether you live or die as a consequence, humanity will find the leaders and follow them.
These people who think their opinion matters to our climate are as ephemeral as all who have come before them, and soon enough they will, as will I, find their place in the dust, but humanity will endure. This nation will endure.
But with what consequence?
If the power of the delusions of a few means the United States steps aside from its leadership role, people will know who to blame.
Don't bet against my country.
You will lose. I guarantee it.
James Harris
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Monday, December 15, 2014
Non profit funding organizations?
Was reading through a recent post of mine again, where I tried to explain the disparity in money given for certain things by continuing with the notion of money as an IOU on a favor. But that was kind of a depressing conclusion to me, as it means weirdly enough that groups of people may naturally give more for a triviality than for something very important to them.
But it may not be as grim as I think. Of course there are important non profit organizations out there that DO get funding.
And fundraising is a big deal for lots of things and I really started thinking in this direction after watching Wikipedia make appeals for funds, and also the Mozilla foundation through its Firefox browser making similar appeals.
I highly recommend giving them money. They do an awesome job for lots of people.
However, I wondered: why couldn't there be fundraising companies that just did fundraising, who say could only take 5% or less of funds raised and had to distribute the rest to non profit organizations?
Then people who are just really good at raising money could specialize and maybe some non profits could quit worrying about raising the money themselves.
That's one of those fantasy ideas as I don't know if you could build a non profit web company around that idea.
A non profit whose only goal was to raise funds for other non profits? Has that been done?
If not, I think it should be.
It could be forced to be focused--only distribute to other non profits with no other distributions allowed, including no direct distributions to individuals.
At first I'm thinking there'd have to be lots of rules to keep it from being abused, but transparency is the most powerful tool: such a company would have to reveal all its distribution financials--who it gives money, and how much.
And along with transparency it would, of course, also simply have to comply with existing laws.
But total transparency is what would make it a 21st century web company. And that's what would give donors greatest confidence their money wasn't being misdirected.
Really like this idea and the post seems to be popular here, but wondering what to do next.
James Harris
But it may not be as grim as I think. Of course there are important non profit organizations out there that DO get funding.
And fundraising is a big deal for lots of things and I really started thinking in this direction after watching Wikipedia make appeals for funds, and also the Mozilla foundation through its Firefox browser making similar appeals.
I highly recommend giving them money. They do an awesome job for lots of people.
However, I wondered: why couldn't there be fundraising companies that just did fundraising, who say could only take 5% or less of funds raised and had to distribute the rest to non profit organizations?
Then people who are just really good at raising money could specialize and maybe some non profits could quit worrying about raising the money themselves.
That's one of those fantasy ideas as I don't know if you could build a non profit web company around that idea.
A non profit whose only goal was to raise funds for other non profits? Has that been done?
If not, I think it should be.
It could be forced to be focused--only distribute to other non profits with no other distributions allowed, including no direct distributions to individuals.
At first I'm thinking there'd have to be lots of rules to keep it from being abused, but transparency is the most powerful tool: such a company would have to reveal all its distribution financials--who it gives money, and how much.
And along with transparency it would, of course, also simply have to comply with existing laws.
But total transparency is what would make it a 21st century web company. And that's what would give donors greatest confidence their money wasn't being misdirected.
Really like this idea and the post seems to be popular here, but wondering what to do next.
James Harris
Friday, November 21, 2014
When money is too abstracted
Was a relief for me to sit down and process basic thinking on money, where I found myself focusing on favors, somewhat to my surprise, as I concluded that money lets you give an IOU that society makes good in exchange for someone doing you a favor. So at its simplest it's not that big of a deal so why do so many have issues with it?
I think the problem is that money is too abstracted. We need to bring money back to concrete reality.
One of those sayings that I ponder now is the claim that money is the "root of all evil", and I'm like, huh? Doing people favors is the root of all evil? I don't think so.
How did things get so distorted? How do you have people who will kill for money? Lie, cheat and steal for money?
Well, it's what you can DO with those owed favors. Like, feed yourself. Or have a home. Or buy luxuries. Or impress other people. Among many, many other things!
The monetary system allows society to have many people doing many things and facilitates transactions between people without which our modern world society could not operate as it does, and I don't think anyone has come up with a better way to do things.
Money lets you separate your action from the reward.
You can mow your neighbor's lawn, get paid some amount, and then get the return on that action, months later when maybe you use the money to take your wife to dinner. You then give that restaurant an IOU from which they can get their reward when they so choose.
That flexibility is unrivaled. It's a great thing.
The alternative is that you return the favor immediately. Or that they trust you to return it at some later date. But such trust is best between people who are close, like in a well-knit community.
Money lets you trust society to guarantee you will get a return on your efforts--not each and every individual within that society with whom you have a transaction, as they just hand you an IOU, which we call money.
So for you to lose a return on the favor your society would have to fail you.
That's why for instance legal tender in my country is backed by the US Government.
We need to talk more about money, and about doing things for others, and why giving a lot of other people something they want and getting an IOU in return is not necessarily a reason to flaunt it, put yourself above others, or do any number of things that really have nothing to do with money.
Like, imagine, you sing to a crowd of thousands and they show their appreciation with an IOU for you to use later, and that was a lot of people to whom you gave something of value so their appreciation has a great value as well!
If you see it that way, how might you think about how you get a return on what you gave?
And from there it's easy to consider where I think money does distort things, where my emphasis on money as an IOU on a favor really works well to explain some striking distortions in monetary distribution, as is a schoolteacher doing you a favor by teaching your child? Does a police office do you a favor when she protects you from robbers? Or a soldier protecting you from enemies foreign or domestic?
I don't think most consider serving your country as a soldier as doing a favor.
But with the money system someone who can do favors or as more people might consider it, give a service like a catchy song, can make much, much more than people who save a nation.
I think societies do try to make an adjustment though for those areas money is not designed to handle well.
That explanation isn't satisfying to me either, though I guess it makes sense. It's kind of unsettling so I find myself talking it out more. A person with a well designed product might sell it nationally. Today, because of the web it's easier and easier for products, like songs or movies, to go international, allowing so much more money in return. You're just doing that many more people a service and getting a return on it. It's about sheer numbers.
But for a schoolteacher? Even when lessons go online aren't they usually free? I think people just don't see lessons as a favor. So society still has to step into the breach to provide some form of support?
So community rises in importance yet again.
So much of how you see things is about community, and what values your community has given you.
To me, considering money less abstractly and concretely as an IOU from society as a return on a favor is very useful in explaining what it can bring, and also what it doesn't.
But maybe that explains why people can be most satisfied with their community regardless of money, when that community is supportive, well-knit, and most importantly its members know and trust each other.
James Harris
I think the problem is that money is too abstracted. We need to bring money back to concrete reality.
One of those sayings that I ponder now is the claim that money is the "root of all evil", and I'm like, huh? Doing people favors is the root of all evil? I don't think so.
How did things get so distorted? How do you have people who will kill for money? Lie, cheat and steal for money?
Well, it's what you can DO with those owed favors. Like, feed yourself. Or have a home. Or buy luxuries. Or impress other people. Among many, many other things!
The monetary system allows society to have many people doing many things and facilitates transactions between people without which our modern world society could not operate as it does, and I don't think anyone has come up with a better way to do things.
Money lets you separate your action from the reward.
You can mow your neighbor's lawn, get paid some amount, and then get the return on that action, months later when maybe you use the money to take your wife to dinner. You then give that restaurant an IOU from which they can get their reward when they so choose.
That flexibility is unrivaled. It's a great thing.
The alternative is that you return the favor immediately. Or that they trust you to return it at some later date. But such trust is best between people who are close, like in a well-knit community.
Money lets you trust society to guarantee you will get a return on your efforts--not each and every individual within that society with whom you have a transaction, as they just hand you an IOU, which we call money.
So for you to lose a return on the favor your society would have to fail you.
That's why for instance legal tender in my country is backed by the US Government.
We need to talk more about money, and about doing things for others, and why giving a lot of other people something they want and getting an IOU in return is not necessarily a reason to flaunt it, put yourself above others, or do any number of things that really have nothing to do with money.
Like, imagine, you sing to a crowd of thousands and they show their appreciation with an IOU for you to use later, and that was a lot of people to whom you gave something of value so their appreciation has a great value as well!
If you see it that way, how might you think about how you get a return on what you gave?
And from there it's easy to consider where I think money does distort things, where my emphasis on money as an IOU on a favor really works well to explain some striking distortions in monetary distribution, as is a schoolteacher doing you a favor by teaching your child? Does a police office do you a favor when she protects you from robbers? Or a soldier protecting you from enemies foreign or domestic?
I don't think most consider serving your country as a soldier as doing a favor.
But with the money system someone who can do favors or as more people might consider it, give a service like a catchy song, can make much, much more than people who save a nation.
I think societies do try to make an adjustment though for those areas money is not designed to handle well.
That explanation isn't satisfying to me either, though I guess it makes sense. It's kind of unsettling so I find myself talking it out more. A person with a well designed product might sell it nationally. Today, because of the web it's easier and easier for products, like songs or movies, to go international, allowing so much more money in return. You're just doing that many more people a service and getting a return on it. It's about sheer numbers.
But for a schoolteacher? Even when lessons go online aren't they usually free? I think people just don't see lessons as a favor. So society still has to step into the breach to provide some form of support?
So community rises in importance yet again.
So much of how you see things is about community, and what values your community has given you.
To me, considering money less abstractly and concretely as an IOU from society as a return on a favor is very useful in explaining what it can bring, and also what it doesn't.
But maybe that explains why people can be most satisfied with their community regardless of money, when that community is supportive, well-knit, and most importantly its members know and trust each other.
James Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)