I've seen this technique used in a Peter Pan pantomime. Apparently if everyone in the audience says "I believe in fairies!", all together, it can bring a dead fairy back to life. It seems like the perfect solution to an imaginary problem.

"If we are to make any headway on climate change"

This assumes you can actually do or something can be done, by mankind, to actually control the climate ..

Whether mankind has affected the climate by land clearing or the fallacious unproven CO2 "additional heating", it remains to be seen whether anything we do is of any consequence.

Additional taxation with scientific support for the collection, is manna from heaven for politicians but I suspect the populace will eventually be disappointed by the results, or really, the lack of results.

All the enthusiasm and good intent from our activist brothers and sisters, will not necessarily maintained if we tax everyone, reduce CO2 output .. do all the things (ha!) the scientific alarmist community insists on, if it does not produce results, beyond redistribution of wealth.

Of course the alarmist scientific community has a big excuse all ready to go, "but you didn't do enough", like what, completely stop using energy and reduce the population of the world to several million? Because that's what it would take to reverse the impact of mankind. (that won't happen)

Most of us would prefer to adapt, and use our resources to do that rather than spray money at governments to try to pick winning causes to remain in power.

The precautionary principle makes you feel safe and warm, but does nothing for substance, after all it was developed in support of belief in God .. I love the adaption by alarmists to justify alarmism, so apt.

You have the ALP with no plan for the nation whatever, except to stay in power .. do you really expect them to suddenly become beneficial and magnanimous to the populace? (the coalition are not much different in essence, just more honest and less controlling)

The idea of orchestrated social action is nonsense because this particular "wicked problem" is unlike anything we've confronted before. Climate change, Peak Oil and AGW directly confront and contradict both Western lifestyles and the capitalist mode of production. There is a direct correlation between profit, which demands economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting emissions and maintaining economic growth is non sequitur. The problem demands nothing less than a radical alteration to society, and not these ongoing fantasies that if we all do our little bit we can turn things around. The only solution is a zero or negative growth economy and drastic reductions of lifestyle-excess beginning at the top. There is no reason why the middle classes should suffer substantial diminishment of (what passes for) lifestyle until the wealthiest have been reduced to middle class status. At that point the middles class would then have to reduce and stabalise their collective footprint at a sustainable and hopefully a decent level.
My own view is that this future sustainable society would be infinitely happier than the one we have now.

squeers "My own view is that this future sustainable society would be infinitely happier than the one we have now"

Interesting .. why do you say that?

If you could guarantee the future society would be sustainable, maybe, but to sell it before it is .. seems ambitious (?)

I would have thought you'd run into "don't touch my stuff" type arguments. People would be burying technology and stuff, like survivalists in the US bury guns .. for when the world goes bad.

Yesterday I saw a presentation about educational innovations in Thailand and Burma. A teacher over there earns the equivalent of as little as 70 dollars a year, and despite hardship and despotic regimes the children and adults seemed well fed and adjusted. I only saw snapshots of course, but my point is that we don't need all the trappings of wealth to be happy. You would not argue, I think, that our present system is a happy one? I thus base my optimism about a sustainable society on the fact that it could hardly be worse than this one.
Our consumer culture is "forced" by the demand for growth and profit; modern commodity innovation is mostly redundant and certainly not progress in any qualitative sense; it is a phenomenal inundation driven by the mania for profit at the entrepreneurial level and growth overall. Beyond a certain point, here is no correlation between commodity innovation and human happiness. Indeed there's plenty of evidence for the latter; that individually and socially we are overwhelmed by an unprecedented and hyperbolic rate of change--of what amounts social exploitation for profit and at the expense of the planet.

Squeers - you have stumbled into an enormous subject, the measurement of "happyiness" (the literature is vast) and chosen the wrong example - Burma. If the people of Burma had a choice they would immediately strive for Western lifestyles. This happened everywhere after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether they would remain happy or not if, indeed, they are already happy off-camera, is another question.

As for the article I'm glad I don't have to read the author's doctral thesis, and I would have been considerably more impressed if she had given hard examples of what any of this theory meant in practice.With out examples as even an indication of what the theory means its just waffle.

Any article that uses the words "wicked" and "horrid" as some of its keynote concepts, has already compromised its own credibility.

The author manages to reduce a set of - one presumes - learned professorial analyses of problem-solving processes, to the level of "hey, wouldn't it be nice if we all got together and talked about this".

So I tried to imagine applying the technique (as described) to an existing problem, Palestine, and how to expand those talks with knowledges beyond the obvious "individual" and "local".

Unfortunately, as soon as you try to include "specialist", or "strategic" or "holistic" knowledge into the mix, you will be confronted by some tough, and entirely legitimate, questions.

Which specialism? Whose strategy, exactly? And what constitutes "holism" in this context?

It would appear to me that doing so would make problem-solving more, rather than less challenging. Determining these additional variables would make that old chestnut about the shape of the negotiating table at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris look like a jigsaw puzzle with only one piece.

The idea of using the same techniques on climate change is prone to the same pitfalls.

"If we are to make any headway on climate change and have the whole of society engaged, perhaps we need multi-knowledge climate change committees..."

But whose "specialist knowledges" would you permit into the discussions, and whose would you disallow? Whose "strategic knowledge" would sit at the table? Whose strategy, in fact? Which also, of course, compromises the "holistic knowledge" requirement. No-one can claim to a "holistic" knowledge of the problem, who isn't also tainted by one or more of the other knowledges.

On the evidence of this article, I'd hazard a guess that either i) it has misrepresented Professor Brown's approach to problem solving entirely, or ii) Professor Brown's approach does not pass the "real-world" test.

Interesting.

Who is an expert?

A drip under pressure?

I would think an expert is someone who is able to make accurate predictions.

Few if any accurate predictions have been made regards so-called climate change, and climate change may very well be a giant hoax, but what other areas would it be desirable to make accurate predictions?

Economics, environmental degradation, people’s health, people’s happiness?

I can’t think of too many accurate predictions that have been made regards economics.

More accurate predictions have been made regards environmental degradation.

More accurate predictions have been made regards people’s health.

Very few accurate predictions have been made regards people’s happiness.

It seems that if someone strays from technical fields, less accurate predictions can be made, and less true experts there actually are.

In the area of sociology in universities, don’t make me laugh.

How can an organisation expect to be taken seriously when that organisation is 110% accepting of mis-information, bigotry, hiding of information, advocacy research, lies, hypocrisy, fraud, double standards, deceit, prejudice and misandry. Or how can universities be totally accepting of feminism, and then expect the public to believe anything from anyone in a university.

Curmudgeon,
I don't pretend to have said anything rigorous above, more in the nature of intuitive. This is online opinion after all, not exactly peer-reviewed, and peer-review's nothing to write home about.
I wasn't recommending Burma as a lifestyle change destination either; it was more in the nature of pointing up the fact that humans are such resilient creatures. You can domicile human beings in the most miserable conditions and they'll find cause for optimism, even crack a joke and laugh at the absurdity of life. The flip-side is that this admirable quality can make humans far to tolerant. Humans are born into harsh natural conditions after all, and have to see to their immediate needs before they can afford to appreciate life's delicious and tortuous ironies. The other bummer about human adaptability is how readily they adjust to glut and satiety, so much so that they're unwilling to give it up, even when it's plainly unsustainable and unjustifiable. In the social context humans can squabble and defer responsibility endlessly, say black's white, or that humans are not negatively impacting the environment. Being short-lived creatures also helps in this regard. I bet if we had a lifespan of say a thousand, addressing climate change, and other sustainability issues, would be top of the agenda. And I bet the minimifidians here aren't nearly so blase about their prostates and their colons..? Don't take any notice of those quacks! Cancer's just a leftist conspiracy to take over the world!
Of course poor states want western lifestyles, Curmudgeon, and they have as much right to them as we do, but there's not enough to go around and we have to learn to share. Western lifestyles (shifting east) depend upon the debasement of the ne'erdowells. But we can rest easy knowing we'll be mouldering in our graves while our children do penance for our sins.

I think you may have blundered onto a plan there Squeers.

I think we should also pay our teachers $70.00, but lets be generous, so perhaps a week. They could then collect tips from all the parents who thought they had done a good job, to make up their pay.

That should get them trying a bit harder, particularly on bullying, & discipline matters. Get these problems under control, & all kids would benefit.

Pericles I am responsible for the word "horrid", from the little girl who was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid. Editors putthe titles on articles, and we usually pick someting we think will get people reading.

By all means criticise the author, but not for my work!

Graham

All of Professor Brown's strategies will fall under the PM's Carbon Tax with little input from Taxpayers given diverse opinions on climate change and future sources of energy along with diverse lifestyles, occupations and income Jennifer.

I enjoyed reading your article nevertheless.

Hasbeen,
"who thought they had done a good job"

That is interesting. Done a good job over what time span?

One day, one month, one year, or over one decade?

And done a good job in what area. Maths, science, English or none of these.

Hard science is more reliable, while soft science is now so unreliable and hijacked for political purposes it is hardly worth spending any money on.

Education is supposed to inform people so that they can make better decisions, but education is being slowly hijacked, and information is being left out or hidden.

EG.
While temperature readings at ground level have apparently increased, atmospheric temperatures have not, but this is seldom stated by those who want to push the climate change agenda.

EG.
In the area of sociology, everything has to conform to feminist theory with nothing good said about the male gender, and anything to do with sociology is now a waste of time and money.

Large amounts of information is being left out of both research and education to suit political purposes.

But when information is left out or hidden, few if any experts can be formed, and few if any accurate predictions or worthwhile decisions can be made.

My apologies, then, to Jennifer Sinclair for picking on the title.

>Pericles I am responsible for the word "horrid", from the little girl who was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid<<

But that's all.

Complex problem-solving in my experience tends to be organic, rather than mechanical. Occasionally, a consensus approach may work, but more often - far more often, in fact - up to 49% of the people around the table will be required to leave dissatisfied.

This is a natural consequence of our being thinking human beings, with different levels of education, different wants and needs, different human experiences, different ages - the list of differences is almost endless.

To attempt a codification of those differences is far from being a futile exercise, however, as it might have value in helping to understand what ultimately drives a decision, should one be forthcoming.

But as far as it being useful in actually reaching that decision, I have grave doubts, given the information provided in this article.

Jon J's first post is the funniest EVER post on OLO. Cheers!

Jennifer says that smallpox was a “ simple problem because once an antidote was discovered, a public immunisation program resolved the issue”.

It rather spoils her neat little story but it needs to be pointed out that the vaccine was developed & administered by a few states, often aptly called "donor nations" –and the rest of the world simply free rode—and so it has been with most other health initiatives.

Climate change , because it has been reframed by the proponents of AGW to mean anything from famine to floods to fierce bush fires is not likely to be solved anytime soon.

Though, I have no doubt that any solutions for pollution or alternate energies that are found are likely to come from the same few nations that produced the smallpox vaccine.

The majority of nations and special interest groups need not have bothered to have turned up to happenings like Copenhagen or Calcun. The only special “knowledges” they had revolved around how many freebies they could extort.

Squeers
So if only we could kill of a few thousand million people and live at a subsistence level THEN what an earthly paradise government control of everything would be?

Squeers, no-one appointed you to be the judge of everyone else's happiness.

Peter Hume and Jefferson,

I don't see why I should respond to a couple of misrepresentative throw-away lines. There's too much of this sort of thing on OLO and I'm not going to dignify your falsehoods (which do you no credit) by responding thoughtfully.
If you want to challenge anything I've said--and I would appreciate constructive criticism--please do so considerately and considerably, that is by representing my position faithfully and your own more fulsomely.

Squeers
Your first post contains so many fallacies piled on top of each other that it’s hard to know where to begin. If we chase all the rabbits down all the burrows, it just ends in incoherent left-wing drivel, like last time when, having been completely disproved, you shifted to arguing there’s no such thing as “absolute” proof or disproof, whatever that’s supposed to mean. To which I said objective proof will suffice, and asked whether Pythagoras’s theorem can be proved or disproved, on which you fell silent.

So let’s eliminate the possibility of evasion or dishonesty before we go any further – can Pythagoras’s theorem be objectively proved or disproved, or not? Do physical laws, and the laws of logic, apply to human action, or are we free to make up whatever economic reality we fancy?

As for the rest, where to begin?:

“Climate change…”
So what? Isn’t the climate allowed to change any more?

AGW
The globe is not warming, it’s cooling, and you will have to address the mountains of fraud, corruption, and straight lying that infests this whole government-funded field of vested interests, before you can expect to begin the argument on the basis that everyone else must acquiesce in your baseless hysteria as a starting point.

Prove that greenhouse gas emissions cause catastrophic man-made global warming, without
a) appeal to absent authority
b) assuming what is in issue.

Profit demands economic growth…
a) prove it
b) so what?
c) By the way, what are you doing tapping away on your computer? You’re against such despicable luxuries, remember?

Since a “capitalist mode of production” is evil, then the radical alternative you envisage must either
a) not use capital goods = death of thousands of millions
b) hold capital goods in common = death of thousands of millions.

It is indeed hard to comprehend the confusion of thought that must have given rise to your utterances, but it’s not a pretty sight.

Peter Hume,
congratulations on your new person(non grata) "Jefferson", though I hope you know he hated economists, and that the ignorant deep-southerners cleave to his doctrines more fervently than the Chicago School, who cleave to liberalism in economics only. Hypocrites, in other words, in dire need of a standing army and logistics.
I'm not a mathematician, though I'm fascinated by Bertrand Russell's autobiographical line: "I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux" (my quotes btw come from actual reading). But then Wittgenstein was Russell's disciple (just as Heidegger was Husserl's and Beckett was Joyce's.) and he's on the impressive list of anti-foundationalists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism who held that proof is a human fantasy. Truth is relative--at least for us. There is no "objective" truth. That's easy. If you'd asked me about "subjective truths" I'd have answered in the affirmative.

"As for the rest": no one is denying nature's proclivity for change, are they? It's a case of whether "we" are responsible. If we are capable of objective thought, should we not put it into practice and secure our future? You defend objective thought and in the same breath denounce the scientific community (tens of thousands of passionate, professional and dedicated individuals) as motivated by nothing more than the next grant?
Where is your evidence that "the globe is cooling", and can you provide a modest hill from "the mountains of fraud, corruption, and straight lying" you assert?
After all this you ask me for "proof"! If scientific consensus moves you not, how can I?
<Since a “capitalist mode of production” is evil, then the radical alternative you envisage must either
a) not use capital goods = death of thousands of millions
b) hold capital goods in common = death of thousands of millions>

I haven't said the capitalist mode of production is "evil"; indeed you're far more reliant on these inflammatory terms than I am. Nor does your sylogistic reasoning reflect anything I've said.
My question to you is, if we are capable of objectivity, why don't we use it to secure the future?

Who's "we"?

Haha. Yep Pete, it's all to do with the Humanism. The humanists speak for us all. There's nothing more useless than a personal existential crisis projected onto the world. 'we'!

Yes, at least we can expect he will be deep-learned in the philosophy of his existential crisis.

The humanists are so humane they can proceed form the premise that nothing is capable of objective proof, that everything is a matter of personal opinion, to the conclusion that every individual in the world should be forced to comply with their grand collectivist plan, on pain of being locked in a cage for disobedience.

The fatal flaw of the article is that, after cataloguing five different kinds of knowledge, the author can only conclude that they could be better put to use in solving our problems by “committees” – thus laughably assuming the beneficence of the entire power structure underlying the original problems.

Such a weak and insightless comment, such thoughtless and uncritical state-worship, coming from someone doing a PhD in sociology, only raises the question why anyone engaged in *productive* activity, dirty or dangerous or stressful work, should have any of their income confiscated to pay for the insipid pontifications of a comfortable privilegentsia.

That's rather uncharitable of you, Peter Hume.

>>...why anyone engaged in *productive* activity, dirty or dangerous or stressful work, should have any of their income confiscated to pay for the insipid pontifications of a comfortable privilegentsia.<<

We all have to learn, you know. Not everyone springs like Athena - and, one has to assume, yourself - fully-formed from Zeus' brow.

Yes, it is a poorly thought-through article. It is possible that the author has taken too many short cuts in presenting the arguments, but more likely that it is the result of reading something that sounds perfectly logical, and simply making comments upon it. Wiser, and most likely much older, heads shake their grey locks and sigh, "it doesn't work like that, you know".

But youth is about learning from mistakes. At least the author has had the courage to put her thoughts out there, for people like you and me to point out their lack of practicality.

As for the people doing "dirty or dangerous or stressful work" disapproving of the results of the education process that leads to a Sociology PhD thesis, I take leave to doubt. Most that I have met would give their eye-teeth for their children to have the level of education required to produce this piece. One that they themselves were unable to experience.

It is ungenerous to begrudge the money we spend on education, however much we might tut tut about the results.

Take a chill-pill Peter, your anxiety is all too obvious.

Apropos my first post, above;
what most of the pundits, and even fundamentalists like Peter Hume (sorry, "Jefferson" :-), fail to realise or acknowledge is that we've been living in a neo-liberal "utopia" for some time now.
Since the 1970's the US has led a period of corporate super-eminence wherein both ideology and obscene amounts of capital are increasingly monopolised. In the US this agenda has been led by "The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEO's--"committed to the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation"--in concert with the US Chamber of Commerce. "Their grants have paid for a veritable constellation of think tanks, pressure groups, special interest foundations, litigation centres, scholarly research and funding endowments, publishing and TV production houses, media attack operations, political consultancies, polling mills and public relations operations". It's been a roaring success: for most of the postwar period the share of national US income for the top 1% of earners was about 8% of the total. By the end of the century this rose to 15%, similar in the UK.
"The reallocation of wealth was part of a rapid increase in wealth inequalities across the OECD countries while globally the income gap between the fifth of the world population living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960. ... In the frenzy of speculation that characterised the new economy boom, the leaders of the large corporations gained enormous personal wealth. ... between 1995 and 1999 the value of stock options granted to US executives increased from 26.5 billion to 110 billion, representing one fifth of non-financial corporate profits. ... In 1992 CEO's held 2% of the equity of US corporations, today it's 12%, "one of the most spectacular acts of appropriation in the history of capitalism" ("New Capitalism", 2009, 34-39).
I think the "Wicked Problem" article is plain silly, and to reiterate, I don't see why ordinary tax-payers should part with one cent before these "evil" capitalist's are fleeced!

I forgot to mention; just as free market ideology gave the world the Great Depression, the same madness gave us the Global Financial Crisis.

bonmot
Wow, mind-reading and personal argument – how clever and persuasive of you. Perhaps you should change your nickname to mal-mot?

Pericles
There’s no need for you to second-guess whether others want to fund this kind of wasteful confused elitist nonsense, since if what you say is true, the revenue of sociology departments will be just as much even if people are free to choose not to fund them, won’t it?

Squeers
You’re in favour of forced redistributions by government, remember? I’m against them, remember?

The argument in favour of forced redistributions is that they are necessary to do social justice. The argument against them is that they are necessarily socially unjust and *make things worse when considered from the interventionists’ own standpoint*.

Now. Which has more explaining power – your theory or mine? Yours doesn’t even support your own point of view! You look on government’s economic powers intended to manage the economy for the greater good, you look on government’s powers to arbitrarily redistribute wealth to its favourites – and declare the results unjust and contrary to what you would want! Thanks for proving my point!

Your criticism supports my theory, not yours – government’s economic interventions are unjust and unsatisfactory even from the interventionists’ own point of view, let alone mine! And my theory justifies both my criticism of government – that it can’t manage the economy well or justly - and your criticism of capitalism – that it is illegitimate for big businesses, getting into bed with big government, to screw the rest of the population.

You are only showing your confusion.

As for AGW – you have the onus of proof back-the-front. I asked you to prove it WITHOUT appeal to absent authority or assuming what is in issue. So you answer by appeal to absent authority AND assuming what is in issue.

Of course if your theory of knowledge is right, and there is no objectively knowable truth, then there’s no reason for anyone else to agree with any of your policy arguments, let alone enforce them, is there?

Now - who’s “we” again?

Gee, that was devastating, Pete..

..You got anything else...... ?

Yep, anxious ... doesn't comprehend "we".

Peter Hume,
just to clarify, your potted version of what you take to be my position (Monday, 21 March 2011 7:29:23 PM) is a creature entirely of your imagination. Elsewhere and in this thread I have consistently argued that capitalism is irredeemable, and that far from being able to address AGW, it can only exacerbate it. No matter how much it cleans up or "virtualises" commodity production, all production can be directly measured in oil and its combustion. What we have now is hyper-capitalism, and if it does come up with new environmentally-friendly technologies, via its profligate method of "creative destruction", they will not save the current order.
But of course you don't believe in AGW, do you? You think we can just go on endlessly degrading the biosphere and exploiting the world's finite natural resources?
BTW, where's your "proof" that the world is cooling?

My use of "we", above, of course represented "human" perception and cognition. It is uncontroversial that no absolute truth can be maintained or defended. But this is no excuse to rationalise our actions in the real world, nor should it stop "us" from preferring a responsible materialist perspective: which means accepting the evidence of our senses and our ability to extrapolate events, especially in as much as they indicate dire practical consequences.

Have a nice day.

Gee, I'm going to have to work hard on this one, Peter Hume.

>>Pericles There’s no need for you to second-guess whether others want to fund this kind of wasteful confused elitist nonsense, since if what you say is true, the revenue of sociology departments will be just as much even if people are free to choose not to fund them, won’t it?<<

First of all, I will need to guess which of my thoughts you are relying upon for your "if what you say is true".

Let's try "We all have to learn, you know. Not everyone springs like Athena - and, one has to assume, yourself - fully-formed from Zeus' brow."

Nope. Can't see how that would affect the "revenue of sociology departments." Incidentally, what do you consider to be drivers of the "revenue of sociology departments" today? Perhaps if I knew that, your point might become clearer.

Maybe you are referring to this view of mine: "youth is about learning from mistakes"? Nope. Can't see that being in any way revenue-related.

How about "Most that I have met would give their eye-teeth for their children to have the level of education required to produce this piece. One that they themselves were unable to experience."

Given that these are the people who are least likely to be able to fund an education system on a user-pays basis, you are perfectly correct to opine that their aspirations for their kids' education have no revenue impact. However, surely this is not a justification to deny them the opportunity.

Taking your position to what appears to be its logical end-point, you object to any education that is provided by the State, as opposed to private enterprise. Is this a correct conclusion?

That's pretty elitist, isn't it? But more importantly, it creates a situation where the already-rich have a massive advantage over the not-yet-rich.

To the point where the not-yet-rich will have ever-fewer opportunities to make their way successfully in the world.

Or have I missed something?

Squeers
Obviously it means humans. What else would you use “we” to mean? Ducks?

Please stop evading and answer: - *which* humans?

Pericles
No it’s you who are elitist for thinking that some people should be compelled to work against their will for the benefit others to indulge themselves in ineffectuality.

The fact that the victims might really want it for themselves is hardly any justification of forcing them to pay for someone else, is it?

Maybe if the government wasn’t taking income from some people to pay for others to saunter in the groves of academe, the first ones might be able to afford to pay for a bit of sauntering of their own – if they wanted it?

There is no reason to think it’s funded by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The reason Labor, after introducing free tertiary education, later abandoned it was because they found the effect was overwhelmingly to rob the working poor to pay for the privileges of the middle class.

Besides, just because you want something, doesn’t mean you’re justified in taking it from someone else, but if that line of reasoning is valid, why stop at tertiary education?

"Haha. Yep Pete, it's all to do with the Humanism. The humanists speak for us all. There's nothing more useless than a personal existential crisis projected onto the world. 'we'!"

When people write "we" it is not about insisting but a way of talking. You are making too much of it.

If someone says "why don't we" it is not compulsion but an offering to discuss a topic further - to mull over ideas. The "we" implies inclusiveness even if the "we" implies an unspoken agreement to disagree; or an acknowledgment of the pros and cons of various alternatives.

Spending too much time on semantics or the way people express themselves is not contributing to the debate at all.

Humanists don't speak for "us all" (note your own words) they are offering a different point of view.

I tend to think one focusses too much on semantics when it is the other side promoting a particular view that does not marry with your own.

Basically this is an opinion site so words like "I", "we" and "us" will come up but it is nothing to fret yourselves over too much. It is just words, you can still remain your own person.

Sometimes I think too much time is spent on OLO fretting about the words used, similar to the numerous posts at times about how someone offended someone, and the rest of the thread becomes more about the alleged personal affronts, rather than the original topic.

PS: I am aware of the contradiction of my own post above in terms of topic diversion.

My goodness, we are being judgmental today, Peter Hume.

>>No it’s you who are elitist for thinking that some people should be compelled to work against their will for the benefit others to indulge themselves in ineffectuality.<<

Which aspect of education do you regard as "indulging in ineffectuality"?

Some of it? All of it?

You are also making a massive assumption that the good folk who pay their taxes to support the education system in this country are doing so "against their will".

But do tell. Would you prefer i) no taxation at all, and an end-to-end user-pays education system, or ii) just a bit of taxation, but the right to direct it at those subjects of which you approve?

I get a clue from this:

>>Maybe if the government wasn’t taking income from some people to pay for others to saunter in the groves of academe, the first ones might be able to afford to pay for a bit of sauntering of their own – if they wanted it?<<

In theory, this is true. They might.

But you know as well as I do that making education a commodity will ensure that - very quickly - the "best" education will command the highest prices, while a "standard" education will be volume-driven. It is the nature of commoditization, in any field, for quality to remain out of reach of the hoi polloi. Think LVMH, versus Target and Dan Murphy's.

This is perfectly fine for haute couture and vintage champagne. But inappropriate, in my view, for an education system that is intended to provide sound learning opportunities for all.

While demand would remain fairly constant, the supply side would change its characteristics markedly, to optimize profitability. Which is their right.

>>There is no reason to think it’s funded by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.<<

That is not a point that I would make. Rather, that there are some aspects of our society that (almost) everyone would agree are our collective funding responsibility. Education, I submit. is one of those.

Thanks Pelican,
I'm not sure what else to make of Peter's demand that I identify a particular "we" cohort. As I indicated to him, it signified human perception and cognition, which I take to be common, more or less, to the species. What remains is the product of education, experience and preference/cultural bias/idiosyncrasy etc..

So if that's all you've got to challenge me on, Pete, I'll withdraw. Though I'm keen for you to expound your counterarguments and respective "proofs" (including that the globe is cooling!).

Pelican
That’s fine as far as it applies to mere difference of opinion, but not where the differences are to backed up by force, which is the case in all policy discussion.

For an extreme example, if the question is whether to abolish slavery, slave-holders can’t have the argument “We [me and my slaves in their capacity as my slaves] have to think about what’s the most efficient way to produce tobacco”, can they?

Yet we see this tactic all the time in policy discussions “We [I and all the people whom I advocate locking up for not complying with my opinion] should do X”.

The common use of “we” in that way involves a sleight-of-hand. It involves *too little* focus on semantics.

So far as Squeers advocates policy responses for his belief that we’re all going boil to death from catastrophic man-made global warming, it is not legitimate to use an “inclusive” expression to include all those who disagree with him, and whom his policies would expropriate or otherwise violate.

Pericles
If people were willing to pay taxes, taxes could just be abolished, couldn’t they?

My estimate of the value to society of such pieces as the author's is zero. I doubt anyone would pay for it voluntarily. If they want to, they should be free to do so. And if they want not to, they should be free not to do so.

Squeers
Okay, so presumably you mean all the people in the world, including everyone who disagrees with your opinions.

So you’re asking me to answer: “why don’t all the people in the world use objectivity to secure the future?”

I’m not sure I even understand the question. What makes you think they’re not, as best they can according to their value systems?

It’s common ground as between warmists and skeptics that the globe has been cooling since 1998; during all of which time GHGs have been *increasing*.

The onus is on you to prove catastrophic man-made global warming, since you’re asserting it. I know: - there’s a wodge of state-sponsored statistical manipulations somewhere?

Squeers

Peter Hume says you believe “we’re all going boil to death from catastrophic man-made global warming”

I can’t find where you said that. It seems to me he is making it up or is deliberately distorting or misrepresenting you. Can you confirm?

Peter Hume,

“It’s common ground as between warmists and skeptics that the globe has been cooling since 1998”.

You really don’t have to repeat guff to try and prove your assertion. If you don't understand time series analysis, just say so - "we" won't hold it against you.

Moreover, you keep pushing the “denier’s” use of the term “catastrophic”. Really, Peter – it is not as “catastrophic” as you try to infer. Repercussions will be bad enough without extremists (from both sides) trying to paint it that way.

Look I'm not the one asserting the need for any kind of policy on AGW. Those who assert it need to prove what the problem is, how they know, and prove that policy would necessarily improve the situation, and how they know, not just ASSUME they do, refer to absent authority, infer that incanting "time series analysis" supplies what proof they require, assuming that temperature measurements and statistical operations supply the necessary value judgments, and relying on *unscientific* faith in the omnicompetence and goodness of the state to fine-tune the world's climate - by taxation of course.

Peter Hume,
You often impress me mightily with the cutting edge of your thinking, but you're looking like a flee-bitten beggar in this thread and you really ought to shuffle off and save face..
But then the ego is a tyrant, isn't it?

Bonmot,
yes, Poor Peter's feeling the pinch and hyperbole's his only protection.

I agree we have to avoid words like "catastrophic" when it comes to climate change, though like any natural force left unchecked, and unmatched by a countervailing force, the incongruous element can reach catastrophic proportions.
I'm not an optimist when it comes to countering AGW, but more in the James Lovelock camp. Despite our giant brains we seem no more disposed to head off disaster than mice during a good harvest.

Think of the money canneries could save if their sardines could co-create themselves into cans, pickle themselves and then zip up the tin lid.

Its time to INVEST in canneries and Australian GOVERNMENTS I think.

What a wickedly profitable GOVERNMENT idea put forwrd by an even more wicked monopoly state media. For those above living in overcrowded multicultyral communities it would be hell but that's tough luck: Shrink wrap their lives to make room for more Christmas Island thug detainees for example. And they do it all by their little co-creating selves.

Ah to be in government, the Media or a monopoly corporation in Australia --- Sheer HEAVEN!

Squeers
Well I'm glad you guys have decided that supposed AGW is not a catastrophe after all. Looks like it's about just a bit of fine-tuning other people's values to make them behave a bit more like you think they should?

Let us know when you've found the "science" that proves AGW justifies taxes that won't affect the climate anyway.

Until then, you and bonmot can just impress each other reiterating personal arguments and assuming everything that's in issue I guess.

Peter H
Yes semantics might be important in context of what you are saying if it were used in policy documents. I have never seen a policy document that uses words like "should" or "we" and I have read my share. Most are pretty dry outlining suggested reforms and desired outcomes with costings and risk assessments.

I think you may have missed the thrust of my questions, Peter Hume.

Just to remind you:

"Which aspect of education do you regard as "indulging in ineffectuality"?"

And:

"Would you prefer i) no taxation at all, and an end-to-end user-pays education system, or ii) just a bit of taxation, but the right to direct it at those subjects of which you approve?"

You are of course under no obligation to reply. But this doesn't constitute a response:

>>Pericles If people were willing to pay taxes, taxes could just be abolished, couldn’t they?<<

For a start, it makes no sense. Taxes are levied so that the government may provide services to the community at large, based upon the community's collective ability to afford it, as against the individual's. At another level, they ensure that the supply of those services is less influenced by the ability to profit from them, than the need for the services themselves.

We can discuss till the cows come home whether they do this perfectly, or even optimally. But the alternative to a system that is neither perfect nor optimized from the consumer's viewpoint, is not to scrap it and replace it with a system that is designed to favour the service provider.

So, to simplify the questions to their basic level, are you for or against a purely "user-pays" education system?