Why Net Neutrality and Libertarians Don't Mix

I read Nick Gillespie's thoughts on Net Neutrality (and more) today, here

And I respond to him thusly:

 An interesting article.  I enjoyed reading your take on it, and discovering the viewpoints on that side of the issue.  I fundamentally disagree with many points you've made, however.  I'd like to respond to some of your points here:

10MB/s being the top-rated FCC speed: netindex.com shows how our speeds compare to other developed countries.  We're in 31st place, last I checked.  And we're the second-biggest user of the internet.  These upward trends have been slow.

On addressing a problem that doesn't exist yet: My ideology allows for the prevention of these problems, while sticking pretty closely to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  It seems like your motto is closer to "if you can't tell that it's broke, don't fix it."  I'd prefer to avoid the potential trouble rather than wait and see if it happens.

On your stance that what net neutrality proponents fear won't become a reality (that vast and completely hypothetical leap) : Capitalism without proper regulation begets monopolies.  It's math.  That's why we want this type of regulation.

On your allusions to the past: What you reference is true.  The FCC has lost in court.  Netflix and Comcast have set a precedent.  My ideology allows me to assess these happenings as "good" or "bad."  It seems like yours does not allow you to make these types of judgement on past events.  If a law was passed, if a business transaction occurred, if a court ruled, then it MUST be the best thing.  I wish you were more open to questioning the past.

On the FCC being terrible: I ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!! I don't want the FCC to have more regulatory power that could further ruin the internet.  However, I believe true Net Neutrality regulation is needed to keep ISPs in check, and disallow practices that can exacerbate the progress along the inevitable path to monopoly.

I am personal witness to the effects of the absence of such regulation.  Comcast provided me particularly choppy service when I was using Microsoft Lync (business Skype, basically) for work.  Incidentally, Comcast offers phone services which are in direct competition with this type of internet usage.  So I got a device that encrypted my data.  Since then, Comcast doesn't know I'm making internet phone calls, and the connection has been flawless.

What I want to see (and I believe the rest of the Net Neutrality proponents can agree to this) is regulation that mandates ISPs to not give priority to certain services.  We don't want ISPs to be able to use their oligopoly power to strongarm users into buying more of their services or hold content hostage unless content providers pay them a fee.

It is clear that your libertarian outlook shapes your thoughts on this issue.  The fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't trust corporations the way you don't trust government.  In this case, however, the evidence for your stance is weak and ill-founded.  Net Neutrality is a real issue with real consequences which are already being felt, and it's about time we did something about it.

Why Net Neutrality Is The Best Option (and what you can do to help its cause)

               Here’s a story.  There once was a lobbyist named Tom Wheeler.  He worked hard to make sure the cable and wireless industry’s interests were well-heard by policymakers.  Heck, he even used to be President of the National Cable Television Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.  His work contributed greatly to the profits of cable and wireless companies alike.  With such a background in helping to tailor policy in favor of these mostly conglomerated oligopolists (and allowing them to become more conglomerated and market-controlling), he was chosen to become Chairman of the FCC.  Although the folly of such an appointment is apparent at first glance, it has only been recently that the general public has been uproarious.  This is due to the issue known as Net Neutrality, and is the topic of this post.

               Net Neutrality, for the underinformed, basically is the idea that the Internet is a medium through which all content should be equally available.  That is to say that the speed at which your computer would be able to access this blog post should be the same speed at which your computer can access all other parts of the internet, good and bad.  There should be no preference for any type of data access over any other type.  This has been the standard since the birth of the Internet.  The reason Net Neutrality has been in the news recently is because FCC Chairman Wheeler plans to allow Internet Service Providers (read: the cable and wireless companies he used to lobby for) to charge fees to content companies for preferential treatment through their pipes, drastically changing the landscape of the Internet we’ve come to know.  He wants to allow an internet fast lane service, with fees payable to Internet Service Providers.

               The debate at hand is multifaceted: should the FCC protect Net Neutrality against corporate interests, or allow the free market to dictate Internet speeds for various content?  Is it governmental overreach, or a moral imperative that the FCC step in and regulate the activities of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and in what way should they regulate?  As has become the norm in US politics, this debate is lopsided.  Giant corporations back their interests with loads of money which drowns out both their smaller competitors’ and the general public’s opinions and interests.  For the sake of this post, when I refer to “ISPs,” I mean those constituents of the US oligopoly, mostly Comcast, Road Runner, SBC, Verizon, and Cox, whose combined share of the market totals 63.37%, and whose interests are threatened by Net Neutrality.  Further destroying the level playing field, the Chairman of the FCC has built his career being on one side of the argument.  This is once again a seemingly hopeless battle, and I am once again compelled to share my beliefs in hopes of raising awareness and tipping the scale in the proper direction.

               Let’s start by examining the reasons some people believe Net Bias (the antithesis of Net Neutrality, represented here by the decision to allow a paid fast lane for certain content) is a good idea.  The most compelling argument, I think, is that certain heavy-bandwidth content is expensive for ISPs to offer.  They must spend money to improve their infrastructure to allow for more and more users to come online and have speedy access to things like ever-clearer streaming HD video, online gaming, and video chatting.  Why should my grandma, who only uses her internet connection to send and receive e-mails, have to pay as much as a constantly-streaming movie buff, if her impact on the system is so minimal?  If the ISP can charge Netflix a fee for the bandwidth they hog (30% by some measures), that money can go toward infrastructure improvements needed to keep up with the demand.

               Economically, this system only half makes sense.  It makes sense that there is a certain cost of providing bandwidth, and, as is seen in ISPs’ tiered services, if users want access to faster internet speeds, they have to pay a higher price.  Here is where logic stops.  If heavier users are already paying prices proportional to their (maximum) usage, there should be no sudden need now for another market factor to supply the money necessary for infrastructure improvements.  If an ISP has not factored into their internet pricing scales the cost of infrastructure improvement for projected demand growth, an ISP with better foresight should have a market advantage.  The extra cost should not fall to content providers or consumers.

Let’s imagine a similar situation with a 100% wind energy electric company.  Each windmill costs a certain amount to place in service and maintain, has a certain lifespan, and is estimated to produce a certain amount of electric energy.  In their business model, they expect demand for their electricity to grow at a certain rate.  With these variables in place, they can charge an appropriate dollar amount for their service to ensure a profit margin large enough to support the continued growth of their infrastructure to meet market demands.  I find it very difficult to believe ISPs did not think about the issues surrounding demand and infrastructure when pricing out their service, and even if they all didn’t, I have no pity for their bad business practices.  If ISPs are really struggling (and let’s be honest, they aren’t), the fast lane idea is a bail-out program that costs end users more money.  I believe that this argument is a farce meant to allow higher profits for the companies at the expense of users and content providers alike.

               It is also difficult for me to believe that United States ISPs are doing their very best to keep the infrastructure up at a pace with market demand.  Let’s look outside the US for some perspective.  The Ookla Net Index measures the month’s mean Internet speeds worldwide.  There is a running list of the top-speed countries, and the United States is on it…in 31^st place!  The United States has the second-largest internet-using population in the world, accounting for over 10% of total internet users, and our speeds are slower than Spain’s, whose users account for only 1.3% of the total.  There is a force that has slowed the improvement of our internet infrastructure, and I say that it is the oligopoly’s interests lying in the opposite direction of progress.  The United States’ oligopoly is the slum lord of the internet, maintaining as little as possible, improving next-to nothing, and its existence is supported only by market demand combined with a stark lack of competition and regulation.

               Another argument against Net Neutrality is that supporting a free and open internet interferes with the free market, that the government has no right to regulate the internal policies of ISPs.  Let’s introduce a broader concept with a question: why do we even have any regulation, and are there any effective examples?  Answers: The FDA regulates the food and drugs deemed fit for human consumption, the point of which is to ensure the health and safety of the populace.  The EPA regulates the pollution of our land, water, and air, the point of which is to ensure the health of the populace and environment.  The FTC (supposedly) regulates business, the point of which is to protect consumers against anticompetitive practices such as coercive monopoly.

Now then, is the internet a service that needs regulating?  What is at risk if it is not regulated?  Answers: Some activity on the internet is illegal or threatening to the privacy and safety of consumers.  With Net Neutrality, ISPs have to give equal access to hackers exploiting security holes like Heartbleed (btw, change your passwords, folks), people downloading Breaking Bad illegally, and kids enjoying the website for Dora the Explorer.  I know that even with a Net Bias policy in place with an emphasis on mitigating against such activity, there would still be ways to exploit security holes, download media illegally, and otherwise use the Internet in malicious ways, which would not be traceable by the ISPs.  Even if the ISPs have the power to slow down activity they know to be “bad” internet activity, they would not be effective in stopping these activities.

Whether you believe the FCC should enforce rules like Net Neutrality or Net Bias (either the anti-crime version or the preferred content version, or a combo of both), there is a catch.  Any argument that the FCC should be more involved in regulating ISPs goes pari passu with the January 14, 2014 DC Circuit Court determination that the FCC has no authority to enforce Net Neutrality rules because ISPs are not “common carriers,” like telephone companies.  ISPs are classified under a different section of code, Title I of the Communications Act of 1934.  A common carrier designation would mean, as eloquently described by Google, that “Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.”

Without regulation, ISPs have the power to decide what can and cannot be done on the internet, and what is fast, easy, high quality content, and what is slow, frustrating, pixelated infuriation.  In my opinion, and in yours, if I’m convincing enough, ISPs are close enough to a coercive monopoly (being an oligopoly already) that there should already have been much more regulation from the FTC to prevent their power from growing to this point.  I agree that the government should not punish companies for being successful, but only as long as that success is merit-based, driven by innovation, hard work, great customer service, and the like.  The ISPs’ success stems from their oligopoly status.  Now that they have all their power, it is also my opinion that they should not be able to profit just from the fact that they’ve accumulated all the power, and Net Neutrality regulation would protect against that kind of profiting.

The weakest argument, and one that I won’t spend too much time on because of its vulnerability, is that a precedent against Net Neutrality has already been set.  Comcast slowed down Netflix, holding their access to normal bandwidth at ransom until Netflix agreed to pay fees.  Comcast artificially slowed down the Netflix stream, and has been doing so with other types of data in direct competition with their services as well, unless those content providers pay a fee.  These accusations may be refuted by Comcast, but the facts and logic dictate that their version of the story (that the quality of Netflix streaming reduced suddenly and significantly due to increased demand) is impossible.  So, now that Comcast has gotten away with this activity, they argue that it is the way the world should be.  To be clear, corrupt actions are no less corrupt if there is no punishment.  The idea of setting a precedent is inherently problematic in a society whose governmental system is one of revision and amendment.  Proclaiming that a precedent has been set in this situation should be as effective as proclaiming that the precedent has been set for the legitimacy of slavery.

 Now let’s dive into more arguments against Net Bias and the path which the FCC is on.  The focus here is on a self-serving system which has the power to suppress any opposition.  This situation is very similar to a monopoly, but much more robust.  Let’s explore.

First, let’s think about the interests of every citizen.  The United States is, after all, supposed to be democratic.  Some people work directly for ISPs or at jobs in which the success of ISPs is proportional to their own success.  On the other side of the equation, the rest of us (the consumers) do not profit from ISPs success.  We pay for the services they provide, and benefit from receiving the cheapest and best service available.  The exact opposite is true for the ISPs: they benefit from providing the most expensive and worst (least costly to provide, but reliable enough to keep customers and beat their competition) service possible.  In this system, without regulation, there could be a happy equilibrium at which compromises are made on both sides, and the market naturally dictates the growth and improvement of the Internet.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in the real world.  ISPs have conglomerated, centralizing their power and mustering lobbyists backed by millions if not billions of dollars.  Free market rules which would dictate fair prices and natural growth do not apply, because this market is not free.  There are aspects of the market that tip the scale in favor of the ISPs.  In this (real) case, we need regulation to ensure the consumers’ interests are protected against these more powerful adversaries.  Without this regulation, ISPs will be able to continue to provide sub-standard quality of service for an above-fair price.  Furthermore, with the paid fast lane in place, ISPs will be able to profit at least thrice: once for the consumers connecting to content (our monthly internet bill), again for the content providers’ competitive access to consumers (the fast lane fee), and a third time with the advantages that come from being on both the ISP side and the content provider side of the market (their affiliated content companies incur less cost for fast lane treatment).  More profit in the hands of the ISPs means a tighter grip on the market, and further deviation from a system which is fair.

One force that could throw a wrench in the ISPs’ plan would be the arrival of a better, smarter, cheaper competitor raising the quality of service bar.  However, this eventuality could be prevented through the economics of the oligopoly which is allowed by policy.  There is no better way to influence policy than to have a member of your own team making the policy.  This is exactly what is possible when a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries is allowed to take a leadership position at a regulatory agency.  The dissonance of a regulator governing his former colleagues is a recipe for bad policy, yet the FCC is not the only entity which has had vested interests towards the top.  Such situations do not lend themselves to fair progress through the innovations of new companies.  They do lend themselves to increased profit for the oligopolies, such as the ISPs.

It is abundantly clear to me that money talks in American politics, and these ISPs have lots of it; more than enough to outbid any grassroots-funded campaign set against them.  It is clear to me that the state of the Internet in the US is drastically worse than what it should be.  It is clear that without Net Neutrality regulation, companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and more will be able to put systems into place that provide themselves substantially more profit for substantially less merit-based improvements.  What can we do now to fix this problem?

At its root, the problem is this: money can buy you policy, which can make you more money, which can buy you more policy, and so on.  If money was not as powerful a speaker as public opinion (and, more importantly, scientific fact), the role of lobbyists would change.  They would not be money mules, delivering cash from corporations to policymakers, but fair representatives of people’s opinions.  Perhaps lobbyists would not be needed at all.  With equal and abundant access to resources like the internet, everyone has a chance to voice their opinions to their policymakers.

And that means you, dear reader.  The FCC has opened their proceeding number 14-28 for public comment on this matter.  Before we tackle the problems of income inequality and enhanced access to the legislature of those people and companies with the most money, we must attempt to revitalize respect for that ideal of Democracy: That the opinions of all the people matter, not just those of the wealthy.  To do so is an uphill climb, and we may not win this battle, but if you add your comments to the discussion, as I am here in this blog post, you will at least be able to say that you did not sit idly by while an oligopoly of ISPs attempted to further ruin the Internet for their own profit, and at your own expense.

Note: Please feel free to use my language in your comments to the FCC or to your Congress people.  I'd prefer if you'd write something like "I agree with what this guy wrote" at the top, but I don't have the authority to enforce what you do on the Internet.

Dear Climate Change Deniers and Failed Policymakers

               I am discovering the purpose of these posts as I write them.  The topics upon which I muse have a common theme.  They are issues which have led to increased worldsuck.  In most cases (and today’s topic falls squarely into this category), I feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness to make any significant difference, but it is because of the daunting nature of the task that I become determined to try.  That’s what these posts are.  They’re attempts at making the world a better place.  I figure if people read what I write, maybe these ideals I hold will spread to others.  Maybe I’ll change a reader’s mind about something, or maybe a reader will be able to change someone else’s mind after taking in my opinions.  I feel like the world can be changed, but the change depends on, ultimately, the will of the people (with a heavy influence from the portion of people with the most money and power first, but that’s another post).  The part I hope to play in the grand scheme of things is to contribute towards the public opinion shift necessary for these changes to occur, and today, I hope to help reverse climate change.

               The first step in shifting public opinion on climate change in a way that will save the world, is to convince the public that climate change is real and world-threatening.  This battle has been waged for years, and that upsets me.  As you may be aware, I have little tolerance for scientific illiteracy in this day and age.  That means that when reports like the latest update from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) come out, and folks flat out deny the results, I become infuriated.

               Climate change deniers have a set of “evidence” supporting their position.  The quotes are there because included in this arsenal are some unscientific items.  They can find scientists who hold a position in line with their own, and by hosting a debate between a supporter and a denier, make it seem like the reality of climate change is a debate.  According to NASA, 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that it is real and human-caused.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to the minority in disagreement.  I am saying that the whole story is truer than 3% of it.  It is misleading to project an air of disagreement within the scientific community when there is virtually none.

               Another tool climate change deniers use is misinterpretation of data.  If you’ve ever been witness to a comment on a cold day such as “global warming my ass” and didn’t wish they were eligible for the Darwin Awards, it’s time for school.  Climate change (formerly known as global warming) is, in fact, a global phenomenon.  A cold snap in the place where you live has an influence on the mean annual global temperature, but does not dictate whether or not the annual global temperature has increased or decreased.  In fact, this winter’s (2013-14) extremely cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere could be a result of climate change.  Remember the phrase “polar vortex?”  A polar vortex is “a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near either of a planet’s geographical poles.”  If it is very cold, the vortex is strengthened, and if it is not that cold, the vortex weakens.  This weather phenomenon was unusually weak, due to warmer-than-usual conditions in the northern hemisphere this winter, which allowed the cold air to escape its usual bounds and freeze Texas (barely).  Climate change is a process that occurs on a global scale over time, and those few cold weeks this winter absolutely do not disprove it.  They may in fact be evidence for climate change.

               My final point to de-bunk climate change myths is perspective.  Reader, I urge you to always question the source of information.  Scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community are the most infallible sources of information available by definition.  As long as there is adequate competent research, the scientific method will always lead us towards the truth.  On the other hand, there are persuasive words and misleading or cherry-picked evidence not in line with the scientific consensus.  When we ask why a set of arguments denying climate change exists, I conclude that it is in some people’s best (short-term) interests.  It is currently more lucrative in the short term to deny climate change and continue greenhouse gas emissions than it is to invest in solutions, and herein lies the rub.

               Cheap access to energy through fossil fuels has done great things for civilization while taking a toll on our environment.  This exchange has been going on since the middle of the 19^th century, has decreased in some places, and is just starting in others (looking at you, China).  So far, the money we’ve saved and made by our progress through greenhouse gas emissions greatly outweighs any cost we’ve had to pay for wreaking havoc on the global climate.  There will come a point in time, however, when our debts will become due.  According to the IPCC’s latest report, the longer we wait to implement solutions, the higher the cost will be.  Furthermore, the future surface temperature of our planet will be largely determined by cumulative CO_2, meaning that climate change will continue even if CO₂ emissions are stopped.  We have gone so far that even if we stop our greenhouse gas emissions completely, we will not be able to stop climate change without further action.

               Here’s some more context from this latest IPCC report, in case you missed the recent headlines.  The warming of atmosphere and oceans is unequivocal.  There is a clear human influence on the climate.  It is extremely likely that humans are the main source of greenhouse gas increase since 1950.  It is virtually certain that ocean temperatures have risen, and there is high confidence that this increase accounts for 90% of the energy accumulation from 1971 to 2010.  There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19^th century is more than the trend from the past 2000 years.  Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have increased to levels unprecedented on Earth in 800,000 years.  The difference in radiant energy (sunlight) received by Earth and that released back into space, relative to 1750, is now positive (more energy is coming in than is being let out), and an increase in CO₂ is the most significant driver.  The report predicts that by the end of this century, temperatures are likely to increase by 1.5^o C in most scenarios, and 2.0^o C in many scenarios.  The global water cycle will change, resulting in an increase in disparity between wet and dry regions (increased drought, desertification, and floods).  Oceans will continue to warm, and the heat will permeate to deeper depths.  It is very likely that there will be decreases to surface ice and snow cover responsible for much of the Albedo effect, reflecting solar energy.  Global mean sea levels will rise at rates greater than those over the past four decades.  These data and predictions are based on rigorously scrutinized scientific evidence and consensus, and we would best be served if we all treated them with the respect they deserve.

               As in all my blog posts, I hope my lens on this issue will be adopted (or at least considered) by others.  The scientific approach is the best approach we have, and as a result of taking this approach, it has become apparent that our activities are threatening, have been threatening, the wellbeing of life on our planet.  The preceding is an attempt to sway public opinion on the legitimacy of climate change science (a task I wish was not necessary).  What follows is my take on implementation strategies for a solution.

               Our solution to climate change must by two-tiered.  We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero as well as place into operation systems which actively absorb existing greenhouse gasses.  We already know how to start these processes.  Renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and arguably nuclear) are the key to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and photosynthesizing plants, coupled with some industrial solutions are probably the most effective catalysts for global CO₂ absorption.  Although we know how to slow and eventually reverse climate change, the current short-term economics of the issue are acting as a road block to progress.  In the ideal instance, due to the finite nature of fossil fuels, green energy would become the best, cheapest, and most abundant form of energy, and the market would naturally shift us away from greenhouse gas-emitting fuels before it’s too late.  However, as stated above and in the IPCC report, even reducing our emissions to zero will not be enough.  Trends indicate that drastic changes to our environment will continue much faster than any foreseeable economic drivers for green energy can keep up with.  Therefore, policymakers must put into place penalties and/or incentive programs to promote climate change solutions in order to counteract the unfortunate disparity between the environmental and market demands for climate change mitigation and reversal.  There will continue to be much debate over the ways policy should intervene for climate change solutions.  I would like to throw my two cents in with a proposal that might have the potential to please all parties while accomplishing climate goals.

               I work in the affordable housing industry, and am firsthand witness to a public/private partnership structure that works.  As an affordable housing developer, our company gets government financing in the form of tax credits, builds apartments, and then leases them at lower-than-market-rate rents to tenants with incomes of a certain level or lower.  In this process, the tax credits we are awarded are bought by an equity provider, usually a bank.  FDIC insured banks are required through the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to offer credit in all local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation, in order to get permission for mergers, open new branches, and other regulated activities.  If a bank does not meet its CRA needs, the bank will not have access to some of these business-building methods.  Investing in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits is one of the easiest ways banks meet their CRA requirements.  The beauty of the industry is that big banks, housing advocates, for- and not-for-profits alike come together, and everyone leaves happy.  Banks get a good investment, developers make a profit, and housing advocates’ goals are achieved.  A similar system could work towards ending climate change.

               Just like in the affordable housing world, the first ingredient to this policy must be a penalty for the people or entities whose actions or inactions further climate change.  They are the polluters, and the pollution mainly comes from: energy supply (26%), industry (19%), forestry (17%), agriculture (14%), transport (13%), and residential and commercial buildings (8%).  Implementing a penalty fine will mean that products from each of these activities will become more expensive if they continue to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; the companies will pass the extra cost along.  In an attempt to lower demand for greenhouse gas emitting goods and services, the buck should stop as close as logistically possible to the activity where greenhouse gasses are produced.  For each area, respectively, the penalty would apply to: fossil fuel combusting energy companies, polluting industrial companies, deforesters, livestock farmers without methane capture systems, and emissions-based fuel providers (coal, gas, and oil companies).  Based on the severity of the penalty, which should be calculated in depth, the demand for greenhouse gas emitting goods and services will decrease to the point where green alternatives have an economic advantage.

               With that penalty system in place, incentive is ripe for avoiding it, and therefore furthering the mission against climate change.  Take the aspect of the affordable housing industry that produces affordable housing, and replace that activity with green energy supply, green industry, reforestation, green agriculture, green transportation, and green residential and commercial buildings.  People should be able to be awarded some sort of credit (maybe a tax credit, maybe a carbon credit, maybe some other system) for these and other green endeavors that may be used to offset the penalties for greenhouse gas production.  As has been mentioned, going to zero emissions is not enough.  Though emission-neutral activities would avoid the penalty, they would also not be eligible for the credit.  They will, however, benefit via the higher economic demand for that type of good/service.  The credit should be proportional to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions absorbed from the climate.

It might be that the company doing the green work has no penalizable activities of their own, so they can sell the credit to a party who would be subject to the penalty.  The economics of this exchange can be set such that the same amount of greenhouse gases (either produced or captured) is worth more in penalties than it is in credits.  For example, burning enough coal for electricity production to release a ton of CO₂ into the atmosphere could be penalized at, say, $1,500.  The credits for planting enough trees to absorb a ton of CO₂ from the atmosphere could amount to $1,000.  The company facing the penalty would therefore have to invest in 1.5 tons of CO₂ absorption to counter their 1.0 ton of emission (please note that these numbers are made up and probably don’t make sense.  It’s just an example).  The difference must be significant enough so that if a company does not invest in the credits, their penalty can pay to offset more emissions than they’ve produced.  In this way, the overall effect of the penalty/credit system is positive for the climate.

A sudden shock to the economies involved in this proposal could be difficult to manage.  Therefore, the penalties should be implemented gradually and predictably, with 100% transparency in the process.  If industries know what will happen within their economies beforehand, they can better prepare for the changes to come.  This is me playing fair.

The arguments against such a system are limitless, but they are all founded on 19^th and 20^th century values, which place Capitalism and the Free Market on pedestals, with little to no regard for the environment.  People might say that artificially altering the economic landscape is no different from the government choosing the winners and the losers, implying that this is an activity that must be avoided.  My counterargument points skeptics to the Clean Air Act, wherein those out of compliance with the law of the land are penalized with a fine.  Without this action, the free market was driving a trend towards more and more pollution, because it was costly to be environmentally responsible (mostly driven by the lack of demand for clean technologies, I’m sure).  The government is picking winners (those in compliance with the Act) and losers (those who are not), and the system has worked to incentivize polluters to stay in compliance, and to keep the air clean for all who breathe it.

People might say that my system of penalties and credits would end up doing more harm than good.  The companies that would be penalized under my proposal fuel the economy, and we must not interfere with their business.  Furthermore, those companies subject to fines will likely pass the cost along to consumers, and that can’t be allowed.  To these skeptics, I direct your attention to the IPCC’s latest report.  The cost of mitigation and reversal of climate change is high today, but it will only become higher the longer we wait to implement changes.  This proposal intervenes both on behalf of life on our planet, and on behalf of the responsible parties, asking them to begin paying now to avoid a higher price later.  As for the consumers bearing the brunt of these fines, if the policy is structured well, and the implementation gradual and transparent, there will be more opportunity for competitive green companies to bridge the gap and provide cheaper goods and services.

I’m no expert.  I’m only well-informed.  This proposal is only one of probably thousands out there, and has a low statistical chance of being the best option.  However, as is my goal in all of these writings, I just wanted to contribute what I have to offer.  In my proposal, economies are changed, and the potential for price increases is real.  Nobody has had to pay the price of climate change yet, and I presume that there will be plenty of opposition once our bills become due.  Is it fair to have everyday people at risk to bear interim cost increases for our emission-heavy lifestyles?  I say yes.  We have built our modern world with the advent of fossil fuel combustion.  The way we live our lives is detrimental to the environment, and there are currently no penalties.  If you are reading this right now, your carbon footprint has increased.  Knowing full well that someone will have to pay the price, and knowing that the price increases with time, I volunteer our generation to step up and really do something about this problem.  It’s the cheapest, and most responsible thing to do.

It is embarrassing to me that we have been on this unabated path of industrial progress at the expense of our environment for so long.  I am ashamed that members of our species put their own profits above the wellbeing of life on our planet, of the livelihoods of their descendants.  I am disheartened to know that the profit-hungry polluters have a firm grip on our policymakers.  The one weapon can be of any effect in such a lopsided conflict is public opinion, and it’s about time the public’s opinion were informed by science rather than rhetoric.

Today, I take a stand against climate change deniers.  I name them destroyers of our world, and I hold them accountable for the delay in implementing real solutions.  Today, I display one of many possible ways we can begin our long fight towards fixing our problem.  This proposal was dreamt up by me, a 26-year-old guy with no background in politics or climate science.  If I can come up with a plan of action, it’s clear that something is stopping our policymakers from attempting the same.  That something is the unbalanced power polluters have over them compared to their constituents.  I hope, my dear readers, that through these words, at least some small change can be done to shift that balance in favor of our planet, and all us living things on it, today and throughout our future.

The Scientific Method, MMR Vaccines, and Autism

               I recently read an article about the link between vaccines and autism, a touchy subject for some, and it got me to thinking.  Either the claim held by many that vaccination has led to autism in certain cases is true, false, or there is not enough information to know at the moment.  Classification into one of these three categories is possible for all statements, but I believe there is fluidity here well.  As an example, my statement might be this: there are bananas in my fruit bowl which are mostly yellow, with green towards the top.  I look at them today, and the statement is true.  As they ripen, however, the statement will become false.  The change in color of the tops of my bunch of bananas is the result of a natural process that occurs over time.  With information from the future, we can discern the timeline of truth and discover when the statement became false.  This fluidity of truthiness is disambiguated once we have more information.

               In the realm of education, we start out with subjects removed from interpretation.  One plus one has been two since the concept of two arose, and the most widely accepted pronunciation of “knife” does not include a sounded “k” at the front.  As we grow older, we are asked to go beyond memorization and application.  We are asked to form an argument and support it with evidence.  Though this two-pronged task is most often given during English courses, it contains aspects of the Scientific Method, which is the greatest tool we humans have ever invented to discover truth.

               The Scientific Method is robust because it is self-correcting and brutally exclusive.  Everything is up for questioning, and nothing is ever permanently proven.  This bears repeating.  The Scientific Method has yielded everything we have ever thought to be true about the natural world since the 17^th century.  All of that is up for questioning, and none of it has been proven permanently.

               What good is a system that can never prove anything?  In the case of the Scientific Method, this quality is unparalleled in its utility as a tool for progress and enlightenment.  Any other method of describing the natural world is fallible because it excludes data that might come from a future iteration of the experiment.  Going back to the banana example, I would say that the statement about the color is true because of my evidence from looking at them.  If we don’t allow for new evidence to be presented in the future, we would be ignoring the color change that happens when bananas ripen.  We would also be excluding the possibility that it is only a picture of bananas that I see, and my mind is being fooled into thinking that they are real.  Most importantly, we would be refusing the chance for anyone else to refute the argument with their own evidence.  The opportunity to refute the claims exists as long as conjectures have a probability for being true that is less than absolute.  With this requisite in place for our chosen method of discerning truth, we will not shut the door of discovery on future scientists.

               Although nothing can ever be proven by the Scientific Method, there is a pinnacle of achievement within the system: absolute duplicability.  Take for example a simplified version of Isaac Newton’s Theory of Gravity: if I drop an apple, it will fall to the Earth.  The result has been duplicated over and over again, and has not once been refuted.  If this theory is true in the absolute sense, the closest the Scientific Method can come to discovering that absoluteness is by conducting the experiment until the end of time, and confirming the same result every time.  However, if you were to ever drop an apple with a different result, you could singlehandedly destroy Newton’s Theory.  Therefore, the closest we can come to truth with the Scientific Method is so far, so good.

               The process of the Scientific Method followed by Scientists is often ignored by the public, and the results have been (and continue to be) devastating.  This is the MMR vaccine/Autism story, in a nutshell.  One Lancet Study in 1998 described twelve children.  Nine of these twelve were autistic, and eight of those nine had parents who believed that the symptoms of their child’s Autism developed after getting MMR vaccines.  Let’s be generous and give this study the designation of the first experiment supporting correlation between the MMR vaccine and Autism (I say “generous” because by modern standards, the unchecked, unsupported beliefs of these parents, with no evidence, no real experiment, and no good data is all that existed in this “study”).  The next thing to do is to test this hypothesis’ duplicability.  That happened, several times over.  The results of subsequent studies, involving populations much greater than the twelve of the original, show overwhelmingly that there is no association between the MMR vaccine and Autism.  In 2004, ten of the twelve authors of the 1998 Lancet Study retracted their original conjecture of correlation.  Of the other two, one couldn’t be contacted before the retraction, and the other has lost his medical license.  As it turns out, he fudged data in the Study, making it as a whole, a lie.

               In summary, the belief of a correlation between the MMR vaccine and Autism is based on one study which has been DEMOLISHED by future evidence in such a complete way that most of the scientists involved in the study are convinced that they were wrong, and the one who was not convinced is not allowed to practice medicine any longer.  By the way, the study was paid for by an anti-MMR vaccine group planning litigation against the vaccine manufacturer.

Ostensibly, the reason the original Lancet Study from 1998 gained traction and convinced members of the general public that the MMR vaccine caused Autism, was because the study was true and proven by science as far as the Scientific Method can prove anything.  If this were the case, the lack of any other study finding the same results, along with the myriad other studies refuting the argument would have put the Study in the same position from the general public’s point of view as it is in the Scientific Community’s.  It would not be considered true, but yet it is.  And now vaccine-preventable diseases are making a comeback.

This brings me to the real question I pose today.  How could this have happened?  I have a theory.  First, the anti-MMR vaccine lobby paid for the study, making it clear that they wanted the results to be in their favor.  The lead scientist went against ethics and fudged the Study in 1998, perhaps for a sum of money.  That’s how the false Study was created, and I can understand that money or something as persuasive as money could sway a scientist to commit this ethical crime.

It is more difficult for me to understand how the lie survives outside the Scientific Community.  I take that back.  It isn't difficult to understand.  It’s difficult for me to accept.  It’s difficult for me to come to the realization that, like Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, there has been a way to prevent these atrocities from occurring.  The plain and simple reason that a false study can be touted as true is the plain and simple nature of the people who believe it.

Stupidity.  These people are taking the “results” of one “study” out of context, before any other similar study could be conducted, and changing the global landscape of preventable disease.  We can see the consequences of their actions.  We attempt to put the study they revere in context, to explain how absolutely false their belief is, to demonstrate that even the authors do not agree with what they once said, and we cannot change their minds.  Two million children die every year because they don’t get vaccinated, and these people are not convinced.  These unchangeable minds have no place in our modern society.  There are people who cannot afford or cannot receive vaccination, and even if an anti-vaccination parent’s child survives a preventable illness, he or she puts the rest of the non-vaccinated public at risk.  It’s been over 300 years since the Scientific Method came about, and it’s still a better tool for understanding our world than whatever strange logic these people utilize.

Vaccines are being demonized because people are dumb.  It saddens me to admit it, but that’s my explanation.  I hope that people can become better educated on how to be educated.  I hope that we who know better do the best job we can to not let them get away with spreading lies.  I do not know if the Scientific Method is required learning in any, some, or all 50 states.  What I do know is that if everyone would respect it as much as the Scientific Community does, there wouldn't be as many people suffering from Measles in California today.  What’s more, the resources we waste bringing these people up to speed with the seventeenth century could be spent towards finding the real reason Autism is on the rise, and we could make some real progress.

The Case for Human Space Exploration

               It may surprise you to learn that Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of Earth’s most prominent advocates for extraterrestrial exploration, would be very glad to inform you of the myriad ways the universe is out to kill us all.  He has special knowledge of the many dangers that would face final-frontier explorers, yet he still wants them to go exploring.  What do he and the many other advocates of manned space exploration see in such endeavors?  Nothing short of the survival of our species.

               Homo sapiens sapiens (that means you) are currently rated an “LC” for “Least Concern” as regards to our conservation status.  Though it is true that our population’s rapid escalation makes us not too vulnerable compared to the rest of the species on our planet, there are plenty of events that could turn that state of affairs on its head.

               Our extinction could quite possibly be nigh, and the causes could be many.  Starting from the very tiny, a super-effective virus or bacterial disease could come along and make short work of contaminating all of us in today’s interconnected world.  On a larger scale, there are still enough nuclear weapons to destroy every human on the planet many times over.  Without proper mitigation, the greenhouse effect could go into runaway mode, boiling the oceans right off the face of the planet.  These extinction possibilities start and end at Earth, but we are also threatened from elsewhere.

               A large meteoroid could plunge into the depths of our Earth, ending us and many other species the way one did the dinosaurs.  A nearby (as in within our galaxy) supernova could bathe us all in its gamma radiation, causing mostly death.  It could be that there is extraterrestrial intelligence, and we get to find out when they bring their superior technologies to take our planet’s resources for their own use, leaving us dead or dying.

               I know what you’re thinking.  This sort of thing is never going to happen to me!  It is true that the probability for human extinction occurring during our lifetime via any of these methods is relatively low.  But just because it probably won’t happen to you doesn’t mean that you get to not care about it or do nothing to act against such processes.  This is the reason we (some of us, at least) attempt to mitigate our impact on the environment.  How would do we feel if that we inherited a planet on an exponential path of environmental destruction?  I could go on and on with that subject, and think I will in a later post.  The point here is basically moot, because even though the extinction methods I’ve laid out so far are possible, but not too likely, I can give you one that is both unstoppable and definite: the death throes of our sun.

               The sun is an ordinary star.  In fact, it is of the type which astronomers classify as “main sequence” stars, because that is mainly the type of stars that are.  The only thing that makes it special to us is that it is the star about which our planet revolves, and the source of energy for (most of) life on Earth.  We have been able to observe other stars in the universe just like our sun at various stages of their existence.  In gas nebulae, we see stars being born, starting to turn their hydrogen into helium.  Elsewhere, we see the aftermath of the event that will certainly be the end of any life remaining on Earth.

               When a star runs out of hydrogen to turn into helium (which is what has made the sun shine since its birth), it begins to turn into a red giant star, so named because of the color of light produced by new types of reactions within, and the dramatic increase of size.  How dramatic?  How about large enough to engulf the orbits of Mercury, Venus, and Earth.  Our planet is destined to eventually be inside the sun.  Life as we know it cannot survive on this planet forever.  What are we going to do?

               This, I think, sufficiently describes why we should venture out into space.  It’s as if we live in a house at the bottom of a valley scheduled to be flooded by the installation of the dam.  If we want to survive, we will leave that place behind and live somewhere else.  The survival of the human race and all other terrestrial life depends on colonizing out into space.  Luckily, we do have time on our side for this eventuality.  The sun won’t begin turning into a red giant star for a few more billion years.  With that time scale, the previously mentioned methods of destruction are more of a threat.

               Let’s tackle the really tough question: why should we worry about this now?  If we have billions of years to get out of here, why would we ever want to invest our resources in getting off-planet today?  Couldn’t we just wait until somebody invents faster-than-light travel and save ourselves the trouble?  This is the argument refuted famously (or maybe not so) by Andrew Kennedy’s Wait Calculation.  There is a time certain when given the constants of distance to destination and average overall growth in travel velocity, that one would not be passed by people who started out later in faster vehicles.  For an interstellar journey, the calculation comes up with this perfect time for getting to Barnard’s Star in about another millennia.

               Perhaps it is not time to begin work on interstellar travel quite yet, but when we do start, we should have a great leg-up from where we stand now.  That’s because the time to start on interplanetary travel is now.  Humans have been to the moon, and our devices have been flung to every planet and ex-planet in our solar system, and beyond.  We face a frontier.  Humans have never set foot on another planet, and we do not currently have the technology to survive such a voyage, let alone allow for a return trip.  There are a few private companies with ambitions to explore this frontier, but historically, the most successful exploration has stemmed from governing agencies’ initiatives.

               NASA has an annual budget of under $18 billion, which is under 0.5% of the federal budget.  It has been estimated that the discounted rate of return for all of NASA’s activities in its first 10 years was over 33% by its 30^th.  NASA put up arbitrary goal posts to mark progress, like sending men to the moon.  Though the economic impact of the boots actually hitting lunar dirt is nominal, the repercussions of all the new technologies that enabled such a feat are still driving economies today.  With all the new and different challenges posed by a manned mission to Mars (and back), a similarly incredible return on investment would occur today.

               The current problem is that NASA has not been pushing the frontier of human space exploration.  The challenge to figure out a way to survive long interplanetary trips has not been faced, and none of those new technologies or their byproducts have been invented yet.  And each day, we draw closer to our inevitable extinction on this planet.

               Sure, in the long run, these past few decades of not pushing the human space exploration frontier will be but a blip on the timeline, hopefully overpowered by the great activities that came before and will come after.  But as long as our species’ extinction could occur at any moment with the flip of a launch switch and a misunderstanding, it would behoove us to not have all our eggs in one basket.

               Our chance of survival as a species goes up with each new place we make home.  Nuclear winter would devastate Earth, but barring some extreme measures, Mars would go unscathed.  Spreading our footprint across the solar system acts as a sort of insurance against events that could wipe out all life at any of our homes.  The sun turning into a red giant and eventually fizzling out, however, might not be survivable within this solar system.  For that, we would have to spread out to other star systems.  Hopefully we will have a plan by then.

               All of these measures are in the interest of our species’ ultimate survival.  But are we worth it?  Should we boldly go where no one has gone before, so that generations to follow can do the same?  If we set out to colonize the entire galaxy, are we noble for allowing our children’s children a shot at life, or are we parasitic for making use of the resources we find along the way?  If we ever got to the point of having a human presence orbiting every star in the galaxy, it will be so far in the future that we probably won’t even be the same species.  We will have evolved into something different, potentially many different species.  Regardless, I think that there is much reason to pursue survival.  I believe that it is our purpose.

               In the Universe, so far as we can tell, the absence of life as we know it is the norm.  Even on our planet, throughout its roughly 4.5 billion year tenure, multicellular life has been around for just over 25% of that time.  Our species has only been in existence for only 200,000 years, or about 0.0044% of Earth’s age.  Intelligent life is not the rule, but the exception.  Newton’s second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, there can never be an increase of order.  That is to say that things will either stay the same or become more chaotic, unless there is an addition of energy from outside.  In the case of us, our complex physical, psychological, and cultural systems are the products of ever-increasing order.  Earth is life’s system.  Earth gets energy from the sun day and night, allowing for life to thrive and become more and more complex.  We have essentially taken energy from the sun, and transformed it into the human-ruled world we have today.  Our very being is the (allowable) exception to this fundamental law of the Universe.

               In the extreme long-run, considering the Universe as a whole as one closed system, current theories postulate the eventual heat-death of the Universe.  Eventually, there will not be enough matter to fuel stellar formation.  Eventually the last stars will die out, and the Universe will consist of nothing but stellar remnants, diffuse gasses, and radiation.  If this is the ultimate fate of the Universe, then life is a blip of insolence within this trend.

               In much of the Universe, we see this trend of ever-increasing chaos.  But in our corner, here on Earth, the mechanics of the Universe have been just so to allow the exact opposite.  We are the Universe in defiance of itself; a pinnacle of order in the sea of chaos.  It has taken us this long to arrive at this point, and our fate depends on ourselves.  Let’s make the most of it while it lasts, and make this thing called life last for as long as we can.  Let’s go exploring!

In response to the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate BuZzFeEd LiStIcAl!!! omg 22 almost non-repeating things!

Here is the url:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

I won't be copying the written questions, just responding, so feel free to follow along!

1. In my opinion, absolutely!  I believe the argument is meant to imply that by steering children away from young Earth creationism, Bill Nye is also steering children away from God and all the good things that come from being religious.  In his capacity, Bill is not attempting to banish religion, but rather strengthen science.  It has only been recently (the past few centuries) that science has caught up to and been seriously able to compete logically with origin models of religions.  Now that the best explanation for things does not come from religious text, it is time to accept these scientific models as our best theories to date, and teach them to our children.

2. I can't speak for Bill Nye, but I am not.  I don't believe that if a Divine Creator existed, that He/She/His Noodly Appendage would take issue with the way that I choose to live my life.

3. No, that is not completely illogical.  It does, however, become less logical by the second, as we see again and again that the laws governing the universe have not suddenly changed.  If there is an all-powerful god, then I don't doubt that a mature Earth would be a sinch.

4. Bill Nye addressed this point.  The second law of thermodynamics and evolution exist in harmony.  Evolution brings variety and newness to species, which could be counted as entropy.  How is it possible to create entropy without the addition of anything new in the system?  The argument would be very compelling if we viewed Earth as a closed system, which it is not.  Energy is being added to Earth, to quote the Science Guy, "day and night."

5. I think she's talking about the beauty of the sunset.  I'll explain the whole thing though.  Earth is roughly a sphere.  It rotates on its axis about 365.25 times a year.  From our perspective on the surface of Earth, as we rotate, the apparent location of the heavans changes.  When the part of Earth we are standing on is turning away from the sun, the sun appears to fall in the sky until it sinks behind the horizon.  At this point, the angle of the sun's photons through the atmosphere is such that there is more atmosphere between our eyes and the sun.  This atmosphere is full of dirt, dust, and debris that deepen the apparent color of the sun to a redder hue.  You'll notice that aboard the international space station, when the sun rises or sets behind Earth, there is not such a dramatic red tinting.  This is because there is little to no atmosphere from that perspective between the ISS and the sun.  The reason sunsets are beautiful, in my opinion, is because we get to see the sun and the world around us in a different, fleeting light.  It is rarity and atmosphere that make the beauty.

6. Thermodynamics does not debunk evolution, as mentioned in number 4.  I can't say I know what he's talking about with the big bang theory.  Perhaps in his mind, the order in the universe today is not a result of ever-increasing entropy?  The fallacy here is that order can be subjective or objective.  Scientists do not place opinions on the amount of entropy in a system, they use numbers.  The harmonic distribution of the bodies in the solar system may seem ordered, but this system does, in fact, have more entropy than it did a moment ago, and even more now.  This is the way it has been since the big bang, so I think it's point proven here.

7. Noetics as the phenomenon of human minds altering the physical world is a fascinating subject.  We do not fully understand it, but that does not mean that a god, let aloneyour god, is the only explanation.

8. I derive objective meaning in life from evolution.  One point of evolution is to diversify and allow for the continuation of the species.  This is the only objective meaning my life has.  If a part of my DNA is not the best fit for survival in our current world, and that part of my DNA gets me killed before I reproduce, I will have done the species a favor by not passing along that gene.  If the inverse is true, and I have a great fitting gene for our current world, I will do the species a favor by having children and potentially passing that trait along.  The rest of the meaning of my life is all subjective.

9. Chance, the laws of the universe, and lots and lots of time!

10. That's cute.

11. The simple answer is that the evidence is more compelling.

12. I think she means we have not found a complete skeleton of homo sapiens' ancestors between ancient apes and us, citing Lucy as the most complete fossil.  Firstly, Ardi holds that distinction.  Gaps in fossil records are to be expected.  Not all bones fossilize, and only few that do are ever discovered.  Compare, for example, the availability of dinosaur fossils to human ancestors.  There are many more dinosaur fossils, but this is mostly because there were many more dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs walked the Earth for hundreds of millions of years, while humans have only been bipedaling around for a couple hundred thousand.  Many other factors can account for fossil record gaps, but I think this is the most compelling.

13. Sure!  The egg-larva-pupa-adult life cycle has many evolutionary advantages.  I don't know if there's an argument that metamorphosis is evidence against evolution...*quick google search*...annnnd there is.  Okay, the argument here is that systems so complex as metamorphosis could not possibly have occurred by a series of chance mutations in a genome.  That's incorrect.  I don't know how else to put it.  That's how it happened.  It happened little by little over several millions of generations, but it happened like that.

14. If evolution is taught as a fact, meaning that no other explanation will ever fit, and evolution will always be right, so we shouldn't bother trying to prove it wrong, then I have a serious problem with that as well.  If science teachers do their jobs correctly, they will be able to emphasize the point that everything in science is a theory, and evolution is the best scientific theory for biology that we have yet.  The reason evolution is taught in schools is because the theory further helps us understand our universe, and that is the point of schools.

15. All science is testable, observational, and repeatable.  A theory is something that can be tested, observed, and repeated.  Creationism is a theory as well.  The reason I reject creationism or intelligent design being taught in school is because it is not the most robust, best-tested, most revealing theory available, and I want nothing less for our young students.

16. This point was harped upon by Ken Ham during the debate.  He posited that in an event touted as evolution, bacteria were able to sustain themselves on a different substance not because of an evolutionary mechanism, but by a sort of switching-on of genes.  In this model, no new genetic information was added.  It was already there.  I don't know if science has yet discovered evidence of an increase of genetic information through the evolutionary process, but I do understand that an increase of genetic information must needs be occurring over vast time periods, much greater than the time since we sequenced the first genome.  It would not surprise me if this smoking gun goes on undetected for years to come.

17. I mentioned in #8 that my purpose is to contribute to the ultimate survival of the human species (or descendants thereof) through playing my small role in the big scope of evolution.  Without a belief in salvation, life can seem pretty bleak, and death bleaker.  My subjective purpose, as I understand it, is to make the world a better place for those that come after me, and be as happy as possible while doing so.

18. See #12.  Just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it never existed.

19. No, you can't.  Belief in the big bang stems from evidence that took billions of years to reach us, and there is no absolute proof that during that time, the laws that govern the universe have not changed.  We have to take a leap of faith that universal laws have been consistant since the big bang in order for it to be implicit from our current observations.  That being said, for me, at least, that leap is easier than one that requires a divine creator.

20. I just do.  However amazing the world is, with all its complexities and interconnectedness, I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that all this could not have occurred by chance over 4.5 billion years.

21. I don't know if one would call all the energy in the universe condensed beyond the Planck length as an exploding star...but the answer is that I don't know, and it's one of the limitations of modern science that we do not have any tools to observe beyond a certain point in spacetime.  Again, this does not disprove the big bang theory, and if anything, the fact that we don't know should make us thirst for that secret even more!  If we turn to a creationist model, the answer is given to us in the form of the divine creator, and that sense of wonder and exploration is gone.

22. The theory of evolution does not assert that homo sapiens sapiens descended from the same species of monkeys we coexist with today.  The theory of evolution as applied to human ancestry implies that there was a species from which all of today's primates are evolved.  This species is now extinct, and its descendants are all that remain.

What do you think?  Do you have any rebuttals for/against?  Feel free to comment & share!

On the Debate Between Bill Nye and Ken Ham

Here is a link to the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mAyBwhiAJ8

I thought this debate was very good.  I heard what I think is the most compelling argument for the topic (Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?), and am deeply pleased that this conversation was possible in the mature and professional way that it occurred.  I would like to comment on the debate itself, while attempting to keep as true to the topic as the debators did.

First of all, I am SO pleased that these gentlemen found the point that they disagree upon, and that which is the underlying reason for the debate question:  What can you prove to yourself?  There is a leap of faith involved in fully believing in either evolution or creationism.  Because evolution occurred over billions of years, and humans have not been around for that long, nobody has had first-hand evidence to support the theory in the long-term.  All we have been able to do is look at fossil records and the like, and piece together the model of best fit for the patterns we see.  Complete evidence is lacking for the creationist argument as well, because of the nature of the basis from that argument: the Bible.  We have to take the leap of faith that all of the translations were accurate, that we're interpreting the text correctly, and that the passages are the true historical accounts as told by God through his servants.

On a personal note, when confronted by these two leaps of faith, I have an easier time making the leap away from God than towards him.  I concede that this could be a product of my upbringing.  It could be that I have been hypnotized into counting certain evidence as more compelling than others.  For the topic of this debate, however, whether or not creationism is the correct model of origins is a moot point.  Has it been disproven?  The answer is no, and as such, we should treat that model as we treat all others that have yet to be disproven.

The debate is whether or not that model is viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.  To this, specifically, I say that it is a viable theory, but one that does not function as sturdily as the theory of evolution does.  I agree with Mr. Ham and Mr. Nye that there can be devoutly religious people who are also scientists, that there is room for both religion and reason in every human.  However, there are certain places and situations where I cannot support the advent of creationism today.

Ken Ham made an argument during this debate that by teaching evolution in schools, the districts were teaching a religious idea.  I recall him naming it the Religion of Naturalism.  I do not doubt that evolution is indeed a part of many people's religions.  Regardless of whether it is a part of or expressly denied by any religion, when the theory is demonstrably the best model for understanding and making predictions about our universe, it is a disservice to the students to belittle the authenticity of, or deny them this remarkable tool of science.  This is why I believe evolution should be taught in schools, and creationism should not.

Our modern, scientific era is one where the teachings of religion, and the models of history derived therefrom, no longer go without questioning.  Questioning is what science is all about.  Today, we can use technology to challenge these versions of the story, and offer up evidence to the contrary.  Bill Nye made the salient point many times during the debate that if we were to accept creationism as a viable model of origins today, our country would fall behind.  If we turn to the Bible for answers and call it job done, our scientific progress will atrophy along with our sense of wonder about the universe.

The scientific method is beautiful in its structure.  When we make scientific observations, we are making assumptions about, among other things, the homogeneity of the universe and the consistancy of its laws.  There will never be full proof one way or the other.  Built in to the scientific method, though, are measures to ensure that only the best theories survive, and to test every theory constantly, searching for new insights.  As evidence supports a theory continuously, experiment after experiment, the theory proves to be robust, but never absolute law.  One small piece of evidence against the theory has the capacity to destroy it completely.  I welcome all theories onto this level playing field, as I welcome all evidence for and against every model.  Because we can never fully prove that creationism is incorrect, it will always have a place on the spectrum of theories that explain the origin of our species.  It is a spectrum, though, and although evolution is just as vulnerable to evidence disproving it, it is the most robust explanation we have discovered to date.

Ken Ham pointed out in his closing remarks his dissatisfaction with the evolution of cave fish from fish with eyes to fish without.  His argument was that the fish have not gained anything, but lost something through the evolutionary process.  This example is to him evidence that evolution does not choose winners and losers by survival of the fittest, and that some other mechanism is at work here.  Bill Nye did not rebut this point, but I will here.  Organisms are made of cells.  Cells need energy/nutrients/food.  The more active cells an organism has, the more food it needs.  Eyes are made of cells, and naturally would require food to be sustained.  Eyes also send electrochemical information to the brain, where brain cells use food energy to interpret the signal and make decisions on what to do.  By living entirely in the dark, the signals from eyes to brain ceased their functionality; they became a waste of energy.  By evolving the eyes away, each generation in the sequence had less and less active cells to feed where the eyes once were.  The advantage here is that they can redirect nutrients that might have gone to the eyes of their ancestors, to other parts of their body, and have that much more energy to survive.  In competitive environments, and in the long-term, it is the little things that count.

The fish are humans, the eyes a creationist model of origins, and the cave is today's modern, scientific era.  It is not necessary for survival to remove the creationist model from our society completely, but minimalizing its role is, in my opinion, the most advantageous path for us to follow.

My thanks to Bill Nye and Ken Ham for debating this topic so well, to Tom Foreman for his fair moderation, and to the Creation Museum for hosting the event.  I'm very glad this happened!