Outrageous solutions to Intractable problems: Part 1

By Gary Berg-Cross

We are gridlocked by what seems protracted, destructive problems that are deep rooted and elude solution. The problems escalate and become irreducible, high-stakes situation which have an I, win, you lose character.  Brad Spangler, drawing from bargaining situations discusses finding "zone of possible agreement" (ZOPA). Often one needs time to explore unpleasant alternatives to find this solution zone.  But of course if people don’t want compromise they make the problem dynamic and create barriers  or limit progress towards a solution zone. How can we find solutions when normal paths seem closed and routinized processes keep us out of the agreement area? 

Well perhaps we can take unusual paths and bypass some roadblocks.  Of course these may be unreasonable and outrageous, but perhaps they make a point. Let’s consider outrageous “solutions’ to 3 outsized, intractable problems starting with Climate Change.  This is part 1. Climate change.

What should we do about climate change?  In his book Climate Matters; Ethics in a warming world. John Broome (2012), discussed the seemingly intractable problem.  As you can tell from the book title it is a moral mess but it also comes with deep rooted eco-political problems. It is scientifically and psychologically challenged.  Many things are tangled up. Broome helps us think through the tangle but dynamic opposition with a  "I- win–you-lose psychology makes some thoughtful, theoretical-ethical approaches difficult. I’m going to suggest something simper.  Something with bottom line appeal.

The projected impacts of climate change are probabilistic.  Bad things may happen. It’s a gamble with people having implicit bets on either side.  OK, let’s go with that, but make it explicit. Let’s make it a bet or bets that matter.  Let get beyond the us-them argument and have a put up or shut up bet.

The idea is simple to start.  On the pro side scientists argue that damaging change is coming. The IPCC lays out some of this which Broome also covers:

hundreds of thousands of indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic are already finding their way of life threatened. Soon “innocent people all over the world” will be struggling (as Broome points out, in a cruel misalignment of responsibility and vulnerability the world’s poor – who have contributed far less to climate change are set to suffer much more harm than the rich). Hundreds of millions of people will be affected by floods and displacement, crop failures and famines, droughts and water scarcity, and mortality through heat waves and an increase in disease. (Review of Broome).

On the other side are more conservative, sci-skeptic voices funded by groups & one percenter-establishment-folks like the Kochs.  Their argument is that it is a waste of time and (their) money to do something about a natural process.  Or perhaps they are climate skeptics.

OK, if each side believes in its position let’s get together and make predictions of likely damage about the next 10 or 20 years. And then lets sets some bets.

 What phenomena to use? The situation is a bit like the Simon–Ehrlich population bomb wager decades earlier, but we can learn from those problems of having definable outcomes.

More ice melting on Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice sheet? Heading for a big freeze, number or record highs, water level, droughts? Higher ocean levels, more acidic oceans, die offs?  We'd need to agree on the measures and they have to be in time to help one side or the other.

How much to bet?  We need enough to make a difference.  Maybe a trillion or so.  Let’s start there and see who is interested. 

Who would get involved? The Koch brothers and their institutions. Bankers and conservative economists…The 1% might be well represented.  The 99% and people who may be damaged by floods along with climate scientists might be on the other side.  Sheer gamblers could take either side.  Las Vegas will be excited but the wager could be a form of climate insurance. The winning side, in say 10 years, gets some capital to work with.  Honestly I expect the climate side to win so we should spend some time thinking of which institutions will use the money to things like fund solar power.

Maybe the UN can hold the bets and use the interest to good effect.  We might even find that groups that talk the talk are not willing to put real money up against the issue. In that case we can get serious even before the bet comes due.

PEARL of Great Price: Public Education and Religious Liberty

by Edd Doerr

Humanists, like most Americans across the religio/philosophical spectrum, support religiously neutral public education and the constitutional principle (federal and state) of separation of church and state that is designed to protect public schools and religious freedom. But this year, 2011, our country faces the most severe challenges ever in this area.

Today, May 9, Wisconsin Gov. (and college dropout) Scott Walker, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, and turncoat former DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee were speaking in Washington before the misnamed American Federation of Children (AFC), a group fronting for the infamous Koch Brothers and the DeVos (Amway) interests. These shadowy radical right outfits are out to defund and wreck public education, undermine the teaching profession, and channel public funds to sectarian and other private schools through vouchers or tuition tax credits. Both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and other states are in the midst of furious political battles over vouchers.

In today's (May 9) Philadelphia Inquirer reporters John Martin and Amy Worden track some of the money being spent to fund these attacks on public education and religious freedom. AFC, mentioned above, poured $3 million into elections last fall. AFC's directors include Carrie Walton Penner of the gazillionaire pro-voucher Wal-Mart empire, Betsy DeVos of the Amway fortune, and Keven Chavous, a former DC councilman. Former Texas congressman Dick Armey's Freedom Works has poured hundreds of thousands into the Pennsylvania voucher effort. These are just the most visible efforts. Catholic Church officials, though unable to quell the ruckus over coverups of clerical sexual abuse, have been pushing for vouchers, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of Catholic parents prefer public schools for their kids.

At least 38 state constitutions forbid tax aid to religious schools, as does the US Constitution, though in recent years the Supreme Court has been moving away from church-state separation, thanks to judicial appointments by Reagan and the two Bushes. Tens of millions of voters have rejected vouchers or their variants in over two dozen statewide referenda from coast to coast by landslide margins (89% to 11% in DC in 1981). The actual referendum results may be found on my web site -- arlinc.org.

In essence, the argument against vouchers or other gimmicks for using public funds for nonpublic schools is simple. About 90% of private schools are pervasively religious (Catholic, Protestant, fundamentalist, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim). They separate children by religion, class, ethnicity, ideology, ability level, degree of disability. They also generally impose religious tests on teachers. Fragmentation of education would create chaos in our country while raising taxes.

The pro-voucher, anti-religious freedom and big money forces have taken over the party of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. The other party is struggling for its life. We who value the principles of a progressive Humanism need to work with moderates and progressives across the spectrum to protect our common interests.