Nature is fact, leading to descriptive and explanatory accounts, while morality concerns values and norms. So in an often heard fallacy evolution is somehow tied to ethical randomness.  How do we tie what is good to some objective standard? Is everything allowed, now that ‘there is no God in which to ground morality’?

Well of course not. That would imply there never was, nor ever will be a standard, however subjective it might be, for ethical behaviour, which is plainly wrong from my point of view. That statement won’t solve our problems of course, so we will try a little harder.

Keeping philosophical jargon out as much as I can, it is best to start at an easy place. Many will have heard of it before, yet I often encounter people being flabbergasted by it when the principle crosses their paths in discussion. It is the difference between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, or in pragmatic terms, a fact and norm. It is very easy to grasp this by examples from nature. When, for instance, elderly creatures die because they are less apt for survival, then that is a factual statement, prone to verification or falsification. If it turns out to be correct, what does this tell us? Well, it tells us that older creatures tend to die, duh. This then, is the ´is´ that is not an ´ought´. If you haven’t already recognized the difficulty, then you will be able to now by turning it into a normative statement. ´Elderly organisms tend to die more quickly in nature, this means that they ought to die, as it is only natural`.

Anyone that has an old grandma will protest, or at least I hope they would. But this is, exactly, what it is to turn a factual statement into a normative one. Absolutely not-done in philosophy, although more complicated counter examples have started to arise, but prone to pop up in normal conversation every now and then. If you are inclined, after the grandma example, to deny this, then consider another example.

Paedophiles. Not many people like to have them as a neighbour, especially not when children are around. When they abuse children people are often outraged, and with good reason. When discussing what to do with these people, who clearly have a functional disorder in their brain– that is to say, they are ill and need treatment, not simply punishment- things get a little messy. Most tend to make a swift u-bend and demand punishments, which neither cures victim nor perpetrator. As soon as I start arguing that these people can have a hard time themselves too -by living in a society where their needs are tabooed- I run into wall. “Nonsense, these people are crazy.”

Now if we regress, plunge into the depths and take a closer look at all the arguments, I always keep something in the back of my mind: You cannot punish someone for something he or she cannot help or for which they are not responsible. This does not mean paedophiles may run free, it means they have rights too. At these moments people often frustratingly turn their heads to a last resort “that it is just unnatural”. And there we have it, a natural thing that became a norm.

Is it informative, does it help us here? I don’t think it does. “Look”, you might say, “there are no grown up lions trying to make love with cubs.” That is probably correct, so in the case of lions it is unnatural to have sex with whelps. Does that mean they are not allowed to? You tell me. Paedophiles again: They either are what nature made of them, what society made of them or some mix in between. In the first case the unnatural argument already stopped working, in the second other people are as much to blame as the paedophiles themselves and the third is a bit more ambiguous, but the blame is not all credited to the person’s own fault. These things are very important. From a societal perspective it might be a good solution to simply lock them up,  but from a judicial perspective it is not correct to punish misbehaviour driven by uncontrollable forces.  It is telling, I think, that even in extreme cases like these there are examples in nature where children are involved in sex with adults. There are even monkeys who have sex with ‘children’ to arrange social relations and hierarchy, so unnatural, in the strict sense, will already have been deflated.

My attention was turned to paedophiles for a reason. As I said, and I hope you agree, it shows just how easy it is to condemn an act without thinking it through, sometimes just because it feels wrong. It has been done before on many occasions, as people desperately sought for objective moral grounds, so don’t worry. Here are some other examples, some of which are almost humorous.

Let’s start with the West’s beloved Socrates who demonstrated to his contemporaries the difficulties involved in attempting to assign the gods as the source of morality. He left us the question “is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Whether philosophically inclined or just quick witted, it’ll lead you to a difficulty. When it is pious because it is loved by the Gods, morality becomes arbitrary: It’ll mean that when they decide that killing kittens is pious, it’ll make it a good thing to do, which is clearly counter intuitive. If you choose the other option, it logically implies some other reason that the pious is good, because apparently the God’s also use that reason.

Another example is Aquinas, a rightly famous Christian. He, sadly, deduced norms from nature, which doesn’t work as we already saw. Innovative as he was, he also tried it from a teleological perspective. This takes a different route, but it ends up where we stopped earlier: Something is perceived in nature, and therefore it is right. Take the human eye and nose. They have a clearly perceived function for most of us. If you were to ask, “for what do you use your eye”,  the question would  almost appear to be inappropriate. Well, for seeing maybe? Likewise with the nose, only then for smelling, and perhaps, breathing. There are many more of these examples, many having apparently easy answers, such as what the heart, lungs and ears are for. The problem is that they are pretty clear cut cases on first sight, but what if you push a little further?

What would you do if you risked your eyes drying out, making them dysfunctional? You would see a doctor, I suppose. Even if you wouldn’t, I still imagine you will, just for the sake of argument. Now, the eyelash seems to hold a proper relation to the eye in making sure it keeps functioning. So my inclination is that it is a natural function of the eyelash to keep your eye healthy. That is a descriptive statement or an explanatory one at best. If we walk the path laid down to us by Aquinas, batting your eyelash to impress someone across the street will therefore be an immoral act.

Are there any other ways out? Going for another optional route in stating that ‘nature almost universally tends to function in that way’ -which you could see in this case as the equivalent of saying that certain things almost always work in a certain way, via a certain route and sometimes towards a certain goal-, won’t bring us anywhere. One simple example to illustrate this: Most people are right handed. That logically excludes the possibility that most people are left handed, provided we read ‘or’ as ‘implying only one option’. Does this mean that, because most are right, being left handed is an act of immorality? The judgment is yours to make.

The basis of the actuality of moral standards

The forgoing was almost entirely couched in negativity meaning my objective was to defuse some of the issues that invariably arise in any discussion of ethics thus denying them the opportunity to obscure our vision or to block any further fruitful discourse on these matters. We’ll turn now toward a more positive, more actual instantiation of morality that will presumably provide a framework wherein I will not argue for decisive rules that ought to be followed, but rather one that demonstrates why being an atheist does not deprive an individual of an ethical paradigm.

Surprisingly, it brings us back to an aspect of nature. After all the deflation, it is time to give nature some credit for the qualities with which we are bestowed. The most relevant one is, without a single doubt, language.  Having an ethical code, let alone adhering to one, is virtually impossible without an ability to use and turn to language, as reflection needs a vehicle.

As there are many different languages, subtracting things that are present in all of them is an unlikely and immensely complicated way of gaining results. Gladly, there are better ways. The foundation of a language is important here. Languages are not prone to individual changes, they are large systems guided by rules. Changes of meaning can therefore only be achieved via acceptance and recognition by more than one person.

You might say: Well I am able to rephrase this sentence or re-examine the meaning of this word. You still won’t have moved even an inch, as language’s syntax –grammar or structure- held you firm in place. This fact, the very simple observation that language is bound by rules and therefore non-random, together with semantics (meaning), creates a collective body enabling you to communicate and pass on intelligible information. In this the reason for the impossibility of a private language is hidden: A private language knows no rules but those of your will; content, structure and meaning can be changed to your liking. Ask why those things are necessary for a language and I will turn to Wittgenstein by replying: “That is what it means to be a language”. (And there is no denying that, unless you are able to go beyond your own cultural horizon, which will need reflection, and guess what you need in order to reflect?)

My indebtedness to Wittgenstein is great here, as he demonstrated not only the omnipresence of meaning in language, but also a refutation of scepticism. Scepticism requires language to express itself, but to refute itself as well, hence it presupposes what it tries to falsify or deny. This also means that language is, in a certain way, something objective, something you can use to build with or on. It might not prove reality beyond all doubt, but it is ‘as solid as a rock’ for human standards.

The good thing is that language, by its semantics, is meaningful. Being meaningful, it carries value in the widest sense of the word. Don’t think metaphysics; remember Husserl who said (transl.) ‘Go back the things themselves’, in a similar fashion Wittgenstein said ‘Don’t think, look!’. This means something very simple. Concepts such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ and ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ are part of the system. Can you strictly define them? I couldn’t, and I dare say you cannot either. Still, you do grasp their meaning. You grasp their meaning because you know how to use them, you know when either one of them can be applied to a situation in reality, precisely because they became what they are via a route that ties them to the horizons of our lives.

If this sounds vague, then let me explain. There is nothing that makes ‘good’ an objective thing, or better: there is not a Platonic essence of ‘goodness’. If you encounter something, judge it to be ‘good’ and ask yourself ‘why ‘:  What will you seek? Reasons or essence? They are not the same. You know something to be good, because you have been raised and taught, acquired and mastered a language in a culture that you made your own, came to be a creature capable of reflection and independent thought: This is what makes you yourself able to judge, because you have a standard that is both your own, and that of your culture.

This implies something: Sharing aspects is not the same as sharing everything. Being embedded in a culture, then, still leads to misunderstanding. There is room for discussing things, thanks to a common language, but there will remain things on which you cannot come to agree (republicans versus democrats, for instance). The jump towards ethical relevance is nearly there, because, on those things we agree to disagree, it is most often our norms, not our values that ensure pluralism.

By now you’ll understand, I hope –or I’ll have failed abysmally-, that ethics is not something beyond our lives. If nothing was new to your brains, then I regret wasting your time, but then you might as well read the rest. My conclusion of this paragraph draws precisely on the fact that, though meaning is not strictly definable, it is here. Remember that it is part of a (language and cultural) tradition, a process of learning, constantly being redefined, subtracted off and added to. Everything then, is not permitted, or at least not in our world. If anyone thinks this is not true, try to murder in our world and see what happens: You’ll be locked up. Why? Because you attacked our system, the system we live in and came to see as justified, true and worthy of consent.

An attack on cultural relativism; ‘why we can be good, after all’

So morality and language share as close a relation as anything. As there are so many languages, do they all lead to different codes and standards? If so, are we confined to live in a world of relativism?

To the first question, I am inclined to nod. Yes, there are many languages; yes these lead to different codes of behaviour. I left out the most crucial question, however: Do these lead to different values? To that, I vigorously shake my head. ‘Naturally’, it is possible that people might live differently from what we are used to, and therefore come up with a system so tellingly anti-us, that nothing seems to be able to explain it away, and it some cases people might even have very different values, but these, I think, are exceptions and no need whatsoever to think morals and ethics are a waste of our time, by never being able to live up to any objective standard.

To prove my point, I’ll use some rather extreme examples. Extreme example are well able to shed light on normal issues, as both I and another greatness of the 20^th century share as an outlook (Austin, a British philosopher of language. The use of ‘another greatness’ refers to Wittgenstein. Don’t confuse my imperfect reference for arrogance).  Two examples are hopefully enough: Ritual sacrifice and reincarnation.

A ritual sacrifice is not something that is generally considered to be inherently valuable, as it is tied to a set of ‘ought’ beliefs. It describes or prescribes what must happen. Think of several reasons why rape as a ritual sacrifice must happen, such as ‘it pleases the Gods’, ‘it makes the Gods less angry’ or ‘the Gods are bored with normal politics’. Whatever you come up with, you will see it is not a value that is being denounced.

Not being denounced? What could be more gruesome than rape? Not much springs to mind to give a satisfying answer. And it needn’t. It is the norm that is revolting, not the value. Gods that like rape scenes repel us, no doubt. What about the people who practice these rituals? At first thought, they too would suffer the fate of our displeasure. But what makes them do it? Pleasing the Gods: The very same thing Christians profess to do when attending church and Muslims when practicing Salaat. Westerns burned witches in ‘the middle or dark ages’, as they were ‘devilish’. We don’t agree with that, but we all understand what drove them: Their religious beliefs, their loyalty to God, and surely their ignorance. That is what you get when God is the ground for morality: Everything is allowed, as long as God likes it. It is not evolution that makes this world random, dangerous and immoral here.

One more example, before I’ll call it a day: Reincarnation. Some people are very, very reluctant to kill earthworms. This would strike many of us as odd. They make such good baits for fishing!

Does this mean -or do those people believe- that earthworms are valuable, precious creatures? No, it does not. There is another belief backing their supposed love for earthworms. Those people love their relatives, and they believe that those of them that died could, or even might have, come back as earthworms. So the value here is (for instance): You don’t kill or harm those you love. Taking it a step further, this will imply a norm: You don’t kill or harm any earthworms.

A meaningful world

The notion that gives morality actual input is tied to the world we live in, I feel like I have said it a dozen times (maybe I have). Values are much more universal than we they are, especially when we encounter strange, unfamiliar cultures. Surely you can come up with many counter examples that put heavy strain on my point of view, from cannibals to devil adherents. You would even have me on your side, but that is not the point. The point is that we now have a reasonably objective platform from which we can judge not just our own standards, without those of others as well.  And isn’t that a lovely fact?

Isn’t it a good thing to know we, not just religious people, can be moral? You might wonder why nothing was written on evolution in here. The most notable and well-known scientific theory on earth, perhaps, yet that would irritate as many readers as it would please. The paradigm of science tells us all about evolution, and we would do well to look beyond evolution, which is after all a realm of facts not of norms. All the stories about our endowments with a social nature are very plausible to my mind, even if they aren’t to yours. These would explain why we are social, why we reason and why we care about morals, but they would not justify them, as we now know.

To end this article neat and clean, I would have to present a nice summary and conclusion, but if you are a good reader you will have had enough; enough to know that all is well.

Last week the United Nations officially made a request to the Dutch government to lengthen their stay in Afghan province Uruzgan. However much the CDA (Christian Democracts) would like to fulfil that demand, it would take a miracle to make it happen.
Especially Labour (abbreviated for purposes of clarity, the actual name is ‘Partij van de Arbeid) refuses to let go of the last agreement, in which a withdrawal was scheduled to take place in August 2010. Despite requests from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen, they have made it very clear that they will not give in.

Most readily to spring to mind are new elections, to be held within a time span of three months. The current coalition was one where forces were constantly pulling the others in a direction unwanted from ideological perspectives. This lead to socialists labelling government as asocial, while right-wingers couldn’t resist stressing the lack of libertarian principles. And in a way that was correct. Health care hung in between by having some active market principles in stock -while other more crucial ones were left out-, education received too little attention and the number of policemen rose, but was unequally spread over districts.

There is an easier way to summarize the past three years under Balkenende, however. When looking at voter preferences, most are driven towards the right, even though the crisis is ‘said to have come from the right’. The more Labour blunders, the more liberals thrive. As I see it, that is a satisfactory explanation of both why libertarians are doing well in the polls, as well as why CDA is losing yet still likely to end up in the next coalition. Perception is the key word here, and for many it tells a story where the Christian Democrats were held back by especially Labour and to a lesser extent the Christian Union (the other coalition partner). And as a centre right party, much of what CDA aspires to is still attracting voters.

Then there is the stance they took in the last debates culminating in the coalition’s end. It was one of openness, one where all alternatives were regarded as worthy of attention, even if by instinct all knew that they planned on supporting the NATO by staying in Uruzgan. Wouter Bos, Labour’s party leader, was the exact opposite: No doubt about it, by the end of 2010 all Dutch troops would be gone from Afghanistan. Polls suggest most people agree that we ought to leave, and as past promises spoke clearly along the same line much could be said for Bos’ position. But, as often, there are two sides to a coin. CDA had more to go on that blind faith in America, or indeed a history of trailing the NATO. Ben Bot, who is a former UN-diplomat and minister, says that Holland is making a fool of itself by wasting their carefully crafted image on the international scene: “It isn’t about what you have done; it is about what you are doing”.

The aim of his argument is international influence. You can’t, being as small as the Netherlands, demand to be heard and listened to, while neglecting those tasks that grant exactly these privileges. There is some truth to his message. The Netherlands would have never received the praise it had from Clinton if no participation took place, let alone that Fogh Rasmussen would have labelled their work in Uruzgan as ‘the standard’ for all countries. Their chances of receiving invitations to G-tops now seem to be slim, as are any visits or phone calls to high ranked US officials. That is, if we are to believe the pessimistic scenarios. That is not the question, however. The question is whether or not achieving a better reputation is enough to justify lengthening a stay in an already unpopular war.

On the whole, I would say it is not. It is an odd thing to perceive so much talk about what is in our interest, while the most important request of all gets so little attention: The one made by the governor of Uruzgan. Not because Afghan politics is reliable, by all standards it is not, but because he governs on a level that has actual input to the lives of Afghans (unlike president Karzai). Being part of a representative democracy, we had a choice: A war, or no war? The same cannot be said of the people living in the region where our troops are located. Instead of focusing on what is in our best interest, we should be focusing on why we are there. If that cause is still a legitimate one, then we ought not to leave. And are we to leave, then another will have to take over. Canada might be a candidate, though whichever country it is, it will have to start from scratch. Rebuilding bases, trust and connections takes valuable time and money.

Labour is right that NATO could have prepared itself for a take-over for a long time. That it did not is wholly its own fault. Once again, perception becomes a keyword here. I don’t think that they for a moment considered the fact we would leave, while most of our allies were either staying well put or increasing troop numbers. Confusion is omnipresent at the UN when it comes to another strange way of handling matters, for it is not their usual way of working to make an official request as long as no clear consensus seems to have been reached, as these are internal affairs. The UN wasn’t trying to grab hold of the last straw either, it send out its wish for a prolonging of Dutch presence because the Dutch government itself cleared the way for them to do so, by implying it had reached consensus. Bos was outraged by Verhagen’s statement (foreign affairs), but later admitted he had been kept up to date. In any case, cabinet negotiations had more go on with this request in the back of their minds. Meanwhile, the UN apparently assumed it had all been settled; why else pave the way for an official request?

Sadly for the Christian Democrats, not to mention the Afghan civilians, the prevailing point of view seems to be that the west’s own economic crisis and other internal problems are hard enough to cope with without a war in the Middle East to fight. And CDA might have sympathizers, they lack actual allies. Meaning it is not only very unlikely that their mission will continue after the already set deadline, but now virtually impossible as a missionary cabinet will not get a say on the issue. The only hope for NATO is a rapid election, with a super majority in favour of the Afghan war, which would amount to saying all American republicans suddenly started voting for government run healthcare scheme.

Last week the United Nations officially made a request to the Dutch government to lengthen their stay in Afghan province Uruzgan. However much the Christian Democrats (CDA) would like to fulfil that demand, each day that passes makes this less likely to happen.

Especially Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) refuses to let go of the last agreement, in which a withdrawal was scheduled to take place in August 2010. Despite requests from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen, they have made it very clear that they will not give in.

Ben Bot, who is a former UN-diplomat and minister, says that Holland is making a fool of itself by wasting their carefully crafted image on the international scene: “It isn’t about what you have done; it is about what you are doing”. The aim of his argument is international influence. You can’t, being as small as the Netherlands, demand to be heard and listened to, while neglecting those tasks that grant exactly these privileges.

There is some truth to his message. The Netherlands would have never received the praise it had from Clinton if no participation took place, let alone that Fogh Rasmussen would have labelled their work in Uruzgan as ‘the standard’ for all countries. That is not the question, however. The question is whether or not achieving a better reputation is enough to justify lengthening a stay in an already unpopular war.

On the whole, I would say it is not. It is an odd thing to perceive so much talk about what is in our interest, while the most important request of all gets so little attention: The one made by the governor of Uruzgan. Not because Afghan politics is reliable, by all standards it is not, but because he governs on a level that has actual input to the lives of Afghans (unlike president Karzai).

Being part of a representative democracy, we had a choice: A war, or no war? The same cannot be said of the people living in the region where our troops are located. Instead of focusing on what is in our best interest, we should be focusing on why we are there. If that cause is still a legitimate one, then we ought not to leave. And are we to leave, then another will have to take over. Canada might be a candidate, though whichever country it is, it will have to start from scratch. Rebuilding bases, trust and connections takes valuable time and money.

Sadly for the Christian Democrats, the prevailing point of view seems to be that the west’s own economic crisis and other internal problems are hard enough to cope with without a war in the Middle East to fight. And they might have sympathizers, but they lack actual allies.

With the euro as its currency, Greece is facing a booming deficit and a looming crackdown. These are Europe’s problems almost as much as they are Greece’s.

Before countries signed up to the Euro there were many skeptics. A currency without a political union to back it simply would not work, or so the claim went. And no, the European Union is not, in practice, something you can call a union. Diverging national interests and voting preferences have made that goal unachievable for the time being. Even so, in due course most became pretty sure the skeptics have been proven wrong. The Euro has become a stronghold, a trusted monetary unit.

Then the all too familiar crisis hit the banks. The banks were bailed out, the economy got stimulus injections like never before, and all was well. Or almost. All was not entirely well. Governments were stuck with huge debts and soaring deficits, and much doubts remains what will happen when governments put a halt on their flow of money to keep the market’s engine running smoothly.  Western nations, even those with high debts – are there still any with low debts?-, would do wise to keep spending level up in 2010, postponing cuts until 2011. The reason is simple: Cut spending or raise taxes too soon, and your economy might slump back into recession (Japan in the 90’s is the classical example here, but America did something similar in the 30’s). Fiscal austerity might be a good thing, though not if this means killing valuable growth, which greatly exceeds an extra year of debt in value.

There is one particular example where the former lines just do not hold, and it is called Greece. Glorified as its past of the ‘Poleis’ might be, it now has little left to boost about. They hoodwinked the European Union into believing it was suitable not just to join the EU, but to share in its currency too. Even after shifting some blame towards Brussels for its naïve idealism, it is still bad, as damage has been done to Greece’s trustworthiness and the EU’s credibility.

In the past weeks ministers from all EU members states gathered to discuss what should happen next. Proposals made by the plagued nation to cut its deficit have been scrutinized and were good enough only for a lukewarm welcome. Do not underestimate the sheer size of the task: Bringing back double digit deficit numbers to below 3%, which is the maximum allowed by official EU guidelines, is no small feat. When eyeing Greece’s Prime Minister Papandreou and other MP’s I would almost start thinking they don’t even want to take harsh measures. And that is probably correct: Protests -albeit unconvincing ones- pop up regularly, and steps that have a negative impact on the lives of citizens’ are rarely popular.

The only thing that makes matters a lot easier is that they just don’t have any choice. Greece must cut, or it will eventually have to default, which is not an option within the Euro zone. A first step must be raising taxes. Not just by increasing percentages tied to the level of income, also by improving the tax system itself. As it now stands it is as transparent as a barrel of oil; and a duck and cover game makes many able to evade paying their taxes. Another sound step would be to increase pension age. Current retirement-age average lies around 58 years. The new aim will probably be set at 63 years. Compared to a country like the Netherlands -where a fixed 65-year pension age will probably become 67 by 2020- even that could be considered as too generous.

As outlined earlier, it won’t be all up to Greece what happens next. A shared currency also means shared responsibilities and risks. So the question this week was: Will Brussels (i.e. Germany) subsidize Greece? The answer seems to be negative, which is very positive. We should be very unwilling to do that, indeed. Not just will it be unfair to those who have played the game by the rules, it might also set an example that relaxes stances towards a healthy financial balance. An argument that runs along the lines that ‘banks were bailed out, why not a nation’ is not very persuasive. The stakes are too high, all have known for a long time that mismanagement was fashionable and no politician will let Greece get away autonomously after it had happened.

The slippery slope argument of ‘not setting an example’ is hard to pin down as legitimate or not. After all, why should nations ruin their financial system just because they can get away with it? High burdens in the future and preventing to have to take unpopular decisions, maybe, but failure would be devastating. Perhaps -with Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland in tight spots- it is not so much making sure countries aren’t sickening their own economies any further with a subconscious feeling of getting away with it, but makings them aware that fiscal prudence must be strived for immediately, and in the long term as well.

The name IMF (International Monetary Fund) is already echoing in the hallways. This Washington based institute has much experience when it comes to rigorous handling of financial problems and an image bolstered by the recent crisis. For a European country it would be seen as humiliation to ask the IMF for help, though what other choices are there? The alternative would be for the EU to set up its own equivalent of the IMF, but that would cost time and money, plus create bureaucracy, while the IMF is already set to go.  Besides, would it be any less humiliating?

At this moment, taken on the whole, it is not a bad thing that the Euro went down a bit. Its value hovers just below $1,40, which is not worrisome. As the value drops, export becomes more rewarding and attractive, stimulating the economy. This must be prevented on a longer time scale, as a cheap Euro will make importing products more expensive and that could lead to more inflation.  Brussels will no doubt therefore closely monitor the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain). Greece already got a new deadline of one more month to come up with a decent (read: better) plan. I have no idea how they intend to use their precious time. I would urge them not to label anything as taboo, while seriously considering letting in an outsider such as the IMF, which can bring along a more objective viewpoint, leading to long-term stability rather than short-term wishful thinking. After all, a debt of more than 100% of GDP does not exactly radiate a bright light.

If Greece embraces neither IMF nor comes up with a satisfactory plan, then we might, for the very first time, need continental interference in national politics. The Eurocrats will love it.

Iran is a trouble(d) country, a place where women are oppressed and do not enjoy the equality as many grew so accustomed to. Its reign is one of terror, its fist made of iron and patience is running low. Ahmadinejad is considered a recalcitrant and extremely provocative leader who can only do well in the eyes of those who hate ‘Western Capitalism’, such as Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez.

While women are oppressed, they are also the spearheads of forces steering towards a revolution. My knowledge is not great enough to tell whether or not one is coming any time soon, but I certainly hope so. There is a reason why women are said to be so active in the protests: They have most to gain.

Change is what is needed on many fronts. China and Russia are still holding the west back in imposing sanctions on Iran. You might ask, why not walk the path on your own? And that would be a relevant question. The USA fought the war in Iraq without UN support, but they’re unwilling to impose economical sanctions on Iran, just because China does not want this. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. Even the people of Iran -who are being told over and over again that everything wrong can be attributed to the west-, realize this is an inadequate explanation or justification of their lives of fear. You cannot criticize religious institutions, you cannot criticize the government.

China has a ‘hands-off’ approach along the lines of ‘don’t meddle with our internal affairs, and we won’t even bother to ask you questions on the most simple of things’. This is easy, as they themselves are as corrupt, vicious and unrighteous. In the meantime Iran is setting course to become a nuclear power, which is why actions taken by the UN and USA are so absurd. Though I am no fan of Israeli policies in general, their devotion to secure their existence and freedom via fierce military action can teach us a lot. In the 80’s they acted swiftly when Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor. If they feel endangered, they attack. If Israel knew it would succeed, then I am convinced they would have destroyed each and every one of Iran’s nuclear sites.

My suggestion is not going to war, not at all. There are many ways to get what you want, and politics combined with economics can lead to persuasive results. Fact is that our policies were too soft for too long, which means words and deeds must now be combined in a much more offensive manner to get anything done. Economic sanctions, to prevent Iran from continuing their nuclear projects, are easily justified here, though I doubt that it’ll be enough (if anything at this point still is), as they’re notoriously difficult when it comes to making compromises.

They’re also notoriously infantile on human-rights. Yes, they might have officially signed the declaration of universal human-rights, but that will not prevent nine upcoming executions for ‘taking up arms against God’. One more reason to keep your state well separated from religion.
Under all circumstances, I oppose the penalty of death. It is both irreversible and immoral. It takes us down to a level characterized by revenge, rather than keeping in mind who is the criminal and who should be the wiser man (or woman, naturally). Lady Ashton, the High Representative of the European Commission, clearly agrees as you can read here in a press release. I am very glad that the EU unanimously agrees that the death penalty is not a solution, not even an option.

Europe has its Lisbon Treaty, it is time to step up, take the stage and play the aspired role. Simple words which can be waved away like an irritating mosquito will not bring us anywhere. There are two countries toying with Europe: China and Iran. Its time to put that to an end.

If you can forgive me for writing in a hurry, then I’ll draw your attention once again to the phenomenon I spoke of a few days earlier. That is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might have committed itself to consistent misinterpretation. Whether this actually occurred and, if so, to what extent people are to be held responsible for doing so knowingly and willingly, is another matter, but we’ll come back to that later.

As I previously argued we have good reason to believe climate change is occurring, and also that we do not have conclusive proof that humans are at its roots. That naturally leads to a great deal of scepticism, which is a good thing as long as it does not prevent us from taking on matters effectively. I would consider it to be good thing that such is the trend these days. We might not have a decent climate bill yet, but that is more to the fact of stubborn Chinese officials and the economical unwillingness of nations.

But as there are always two sides to one coin, this news was ‘too good’ to be left well alone. Since 1990 the number of weather stations used by the IPCC has shrunk from a total of 6000 to only 1500. According to some scientists, of which Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts are two familiar names, this is one of the major reasons why numbers so consistently point to higher average temperatures.

This does not necessarily mean the figures have become unreliable. What does seem to make this happen, however, are their geographical locations, or absence of it. Most stations have been removed from high altitudes, the North Pole and countryside. Influences of the first two of these are clear, as temperatures on great heights and the North Pole are high enough to pull down nearly any average temperature, but the countryside is highly significant as well as it generally comes with less heat radiation from asphalt and industry.

Even worse, there is another blow. Temperatures by the IPCC are measured via these weather stations, but they can also be measured via satellite systems. These systems lack one serious disadvantage, namely the one we just mentioned. Their measurements are not tied to geographical locations owing to their ‘3rd person perspective’, meaning more is measured to the same standard and viability to irrelevant or biased fluctuations is less likely. This ‘shows’ itself in the figures: The IPCC temperature on average has been rising, while satellite mappings of this earth’s temperature have shown decreases since 2001.

No opportunities have so far arisen to take a deeper look into the data, so I cannot verify the arguments here presented. The numbers are taken from several newspapers, albeit not the ones I admire best for their quality. It is truly interesting, though, as it shows the nature of science by illuminating its ability and tendency to overthrow consensus, even if matters haven’t reached this point (yet?). It not only shows that data interpretation is highly sensitive to our questions, it also shows that philosophy of science is sometimes right when it stresses that measuring devices, systems or principles can lead us astray.

Do not jump ahead here. I do not mean to say there is no climate change. Still being indebted to scientific consensus (even if fully aware of this), I need a little more in order to accept my beliefs to have been falsified. Lately, some good attempts occurred, though sadly it all came from within the branch that upheld the theory. Not by rational reflection, but by ignorant ways of using ill-founded information.

That is scandalous. The richness of literature prevents nearly everyone from knowing all about the issue, as each case tends to build upon previously collected data. Let it be stressed here that my own thoughts and articles form no exception to this rule whatsoever. The danger of doing so should by now be obvious. Even if it turns out that the IPCC has a good explanation of their weather-station numbers and satellite figures, we still have the Himalaya glaciers as a reminder.

Already in the second month of 2010, the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen seems a long forgotten story. New things have been added to the timeline in which nations worldwide want to fight the process that is said to be so devastating to this planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can be found in many headlines in recent weeks. Skepticism, fury and lies set the tone.

Fist there is the issue of alternatives. There is such widespread consensus among politicians that no one seems to doubt global warming as a result of human action, which means that too little time and money are invested to see if there are alternative explanations that could reasonably tell us why our earth is warming up. While this, in part, might be a legitimate demand, it does not change the situation we are in. If, I repeat if, climate change is happening and we can do something about it, then the time to act has come, if it hasn’t already passed. Besides that, science is about aiming for truth, wherefore the obligation to pursue various theories is a rather loose one, as accumulated evidence tends to shift the burden of proof towards other points of view.

A second issue, even much more painful, is that of an agenda. Scientists have been accused of withholding information to the public for all sorts of reasons, such as maintaining financial support. The so called “Climate gate affair” in November/December 2009 is an example of this. Over a thousand personal e-mails were stolen from the East Anglia University, and supposedly some spoke of changing data and stories in order to prevent doubts about climate change from arising. In fact, what happened was interaction between people via e-mails in ways that you and I might opt for when e-mailing. Even if -and this is hypothetical- some data cannot satisfactorily be collected or explained by the current technological means available, that does not mean that ripping things out of context brings you at places better suited for objective judgments. The only thing it is likely to do is make all ‘the evidence’ fit your story, rather than doing it the other way around by making a story out of the evidence.

There is more. Glaciers’ melting is a common horror story for everyone fearing planetary demise.  How horrifying is it that the IPCC seems to have been using the tentative, totally unproven, hypothesis of an Indian scientist. Another example, as if we need it, of using numbers and figures to your liking. We should be glad that the Himalaya glaciers will not melt before the second half on this century. Skeptics, once again, fiercely entered the fray with their claims, telling of conspiracies and lies. They are right in the sense that no one will be able to conclusively prove mankind’s influence in this planet’s overheating. They’re wrong in stating it is a conspiracy, however. The theory is build up out of numerous investigations, many collections of data and probable inferences. As the IPCC says about their unlucky mistake:

The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated:

“Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21^st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly. The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

It sums up the moral of the story: They made a mistake, but the theory has not been falsified in any way.  If we’d all just stop moaning and use all our ingenuity to get a good deal through, the search for truth and a solution can be continued via various routes. A case has already been argued –not just by the unknowing me, but by the Economist- that costs will not be huge. Work together quickly and effectively, and the bank bail-outs, hugely unpopular, will turn out to be more expensive than acting on global warming. And what is more important?

Well we know what is more important, that is not the problem. The problem is a lack of responsibility on the west’s side, complemented by hugely inflated egos from developing nations. Combine this with an increasing sense of skepticism, ignorance about facts and research and an even greater general unwillingness to invest in something that is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and you have made sure ‘Green-people’ face serious challenges. This was one of the reasons why Copenhagen was neither failure, nor success.  One of the few good things that can be said about it is that China and India are now bound by at least some agreement, even if it is not legally binding.

The European Union has now decided to step into the plan as well, by formally announcing in a press release that they ‘reconfirm their commitment to a negotiating process’ which aims at limiting warming to two degrees Celsius. The aims are an emission reduction of 50% by in 2050, (in comparison with figures from 1990), and the emission peak mustn’t be any later than 2020. Intermediate goals are less ambitious, yet should still be at least 20% lower by 2020 (again, in comparison with 1990 figures). This intermediate aim is not definite, as in theory the EU can decide to increase it to a 30% cut under the conditions agreed by the European Council.

These are common sense conditions too, not idealistic ones in which Europe tries to be the only good boy in class. The extra cuts will only take place if other developed countries will also commit themselves to comparable reductions, with the extra demand of cooperation from developing nations. These should display responsible behavior, which in essence means finding ways to limit emissions, but less vigorously and/or with financial help from rich nations. That step is easily justified, as anything done by the EU will be outweighed by the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China)-countries doing nothing, and developing nations can claim help from developed ones based on the voice of industrial history.

Lets hope that 2010 will be a better year for our climate. With temperatures low, and the weather bad, we’ll face arguments even more inclined to deny global warming. The fact that countries such as England and the USA (and many more) have been plagued by bad weather doesn’t change a damn thing. Measures on a global scale, that take wind currents and directions into account, will be able to give a suitable explanations for this.

In the meantime, we have the time to think our policies through, so that hopefully we’ll come up with something good at the next climate conference. The  more we overestimate this problem, the fiercer we will act, the smaller the damage. The greater we underestimate this problem, the higher eventual costs and the more damage future generations will be stuck with. That is not a strictly sound argument, but it’s persuasive enough for me.