things that might have been otherwise

To paraphrase Gandhi: ‘everyone wants sustainable, reliable power, but nobody wants a power station in their backyard’.

Whether the energy source is nuclear, coal or wind power, everyone acknowledges the need for power stations, but no-one wants one in *their* neighbourhood. The obvious answer came to me a few years back. All we have to do is devolve energy planning to a very local level. This would mean that each small community (say < 1000 households) could choose between: -a pleasant neighbourhood with a net import of energy, and higher bills -a clean but ‘unsightly’ power source such as wind
-a worrying but efficient power source such as nuclear (and income from the excess energy generated)

And so on. This would encourage people to grapple with the infamous NIMBY hurdle. What if no community wanted power generation local to them? Then energy costs would rise to the point where it would become deeply attractive for some communities to generate on a larger scale.

I see from National Geographic that Toshiba are designing small nuclear reactors which might be deployed in this way in Alaska. I knew someone else would have thought of this!

My weekends are slipping by now, as I lurch towards my exams. Just one more extended essay on ethics to go, then tidying everything up, then head down for the finals. Fortunately, I seem to be enjoying philosophy more and more as I go on. .So much so that I’ve taken to waking up early on study days, raring to get into the library. Tragic, comic, or convenient? A mixture of all three, I suppose…

Thankful, too, that I am well looked after and have frequent good times with neighbours. If it was all books and only books, I fear even my enthusiasm would tail off. I think Hume strongly advised occasional bouts of beer and billiards for when the philosophy became too puzzling.

Some ideas that struck me today, which might one day stand up to philosophical scrutiny:
1. The ethics of cycling. Why follow the rules? Why be kind to other road users? The fear and anger which bubbles up when on two wheels, surrounded by traffic, seem to turn one into a red-clawed Hobbesian. But this does not seem a route to safer, kinder roads…

2. How ‘ethical’ is tight control of information and ideas? We tacitly accept the notion of ‘state secrets’, yet acknowledge the need for democracy to allow the free flow of ideas. Also, we now seem to be in a world where the state demands (and controls) vast sets of our data, and yet is not itself transparent. Is this the right way to the ideal polis?
3. From Prof Wiggins’ lecture on knowing how and knowing that. The key chasm to be surmounted in ethics seems to be the gap between mere ‘facts’ (universal, non-evaluative) and judgements (possibly subjective, contextual and definitely evaluative).

I’m a Quaker and a philosopher. Some might think this an incompatible, perhaps preposterous combination. I haven’t analysed the effect of my philosophy on my faith and vice versa in great detail.

I am increasingly aware that I should probably begin to tackle this blind spot.

As Socrates said: ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’.

As George Fox said ‘What canst thou say?’

Quaker faith is provisional and grounded in experience. I suppose that means it is less dogmatic than some systems of religious belief, and so less vulnerable to philosophical scrutiny. I do really value the Quaker emphasis on continuing insight and search after truth which is relevant to us today.

On the other hand, the Quaker emphasis on personal experience might lead one to have either trivial or idiosyncratic beliefs. There’s the danger that personal beliefs are squeezed into or otherwise shaped by one’s life experience, which seems wrong for a faith that aspires to depth.

One could say that philosophy is about questioning the assumptions behind our beliefs, big and small. And the kind of philosophy I study and practice emphasises rejecting conclusions that are invalid or speculative.

Of course, there are philosophers with faith in God. But I get the sense that religious belief is not a common characteristic of an earnest contemporary philosopher- particularly not at my institution. Philosophy seems to demand evidence that faith just cannot supply, while religious faith or belief seems to entangle us in unphilosophical beliefs.

However, some of the most hotly-contested philosophical questions are those where opinions are rife and evidence is scarce. For example, what constitutes a rational mind? What are morals? What is knowledge? Is the universe causally determined? These questions remain contentious and challenging even when God or spirituality is kept out of the picture.

It will come as no surprise that I don’t have a neat conclusion to round off this post. Just the sense that it might be time to work out my beliefs a bit more clearly. A renewed commitment to seeking after truth. I’ll try to share my insights here.

In its early days our Society owed much to a people who called themselves Seekers: they joined us in great numbers and were prominent in the spread of Quakerism. It is a name which must appeal strongly to the scientific temperament. The name has died out, but I think that the spirit of seeking is still the prevailing one in our faith, which for that reason is not embodied in any creed or formula.

Arthur S Eddington, 1929

People often think of prayer as a slightly odd practice. What difference will it make? This doubt is shared by people who believe in God, agnostics and atheists alike. If God exists and knows what he’s doing, why try to change his mind? If God doesn’t exist, why bother speaking to someone who isn’t there?

I can see these are strong objections. But if we think of prayer as being more about personal alignment, than some kind of cosmic feedback form, then it is valuable. For example, Quaker faith & practice 2.27 and 2.29 make very useful points about prayer not being a substitute for practical action.

Same old, same old. Was struck by a New Year’s photo in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/gallery/2010/jan/01/24-hours-in-pictures?picture=357534813

It looked very familiar, then I realised I’d seen a very similar photo of the same chap doing the same thing last year!

1 Jan, 2009, Sacramento Bee:

Chap jumps into the Tiber (I)

1 Jan, 2010 the Guardian:

Guardian picture selection (chap jumps into the Tiber (II)

20091228 nn railway, originally uploaded by rachelandjohn.

Lovely trip on the steam railway today, very pretty shadow cast by the steam onto Sheringham golf course

12262009_sheringham woods gazebo, originally uploaded by rachelandjohn.

An interesting viewing point in Sheringham woods

12252009_tractor, originally uploaded by rachelandjohn.

A rusty tractor enjoys a Christmas break from hauling boats at Cromer beach

Responding to a tweet about DRM being ‘cracked’ on Amazon’s Kindle made me realise why DRM is not the answer we need to protect book revenues.

What we actually need to do is to make buying an ebook as easy and risk-free as illegally copying it. Think itunes store. Right now, there is no standard and portable format for ebooks. This means that potential buyers have to hope their chosen format will outlive the device they initially purchase it for.

The second problem publishers need to address is that of pricing. People who have bought ebook readers have laid out a substantial sum, and in doing so have all but eliminated publisher’s future distribution costs. Why then are they paying the same, or more than the price of a paperback? A more palatable price would quickly get people in the habit of buying (rather than copying) ebooks, just as happened with MP3s.

There are many other pricing models. What about a free ebook reader, supported by a monthly subscription? This would get the new format into people’s hands quickly, with less initial cost, but still commit them to buying ebooks regularly. This model makes even more sense for newspapers.

How long will it take publishers to catch on? Editorial technology becomes obsolete every decade or so, but the basic product hasn’t changed. Let’s get on with it!