Government by the people for the people
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 | 0 comments »
Taking Holland as an example, there are currently two regular opportunities for citizens to vote. One being the choice of government, the other being the choice of local council. In both cases there are lists of candidates, divided into political parties from which the citizen may select one. Certain decisions may warrant a referendum, either locally (e.g. construction of a new metro line in Amsterdam) or nationally (e.g. acceptance of the European constitution).
When we vote for an individual we are voting based on a myriad of factors, their views as expressed publicly, their promises, the party to which they belong and what that represents, their appearance and charisma, their history, their lifestyle and the opinions of those around us. It is almost impossible for a politician to represent all our views. Often the views held by an individual do not correspond with the standpoint of a single political party. Even where this may be the case individual politicians will have their own areas of emphasis and may alter their views according to events which occur.
Once a politician has been voted into office we hope that they will act in accordance with our wishes. This is rarely the case. Indeed history shows an extreme disparity between what voters expect of politicians and their behavior once in power.
Referendums on the other hand are a direct form of policy by the people. Currently the use of this form of decision making is rare and expensive. However, I believe it to be a useful model for a new method of governance. One in which all major decisions are open to influence by the people.
In such a system governments do not require political parties to function democratically. The inclusion of the political party as a middleman in the negotiation of the wishes of people, allows for unwelcome distortions to occur. An example of this can be seen in the recent invasion of Iraq. This highly unpopular decision did not represent the wishes of the majority of the citizens of most countries taking part.
Rather than handing all decision making power over to unpredictable politicians, it is possible to keep control of policy with the people of the country.
I propose a national internet based system of voting on policy. Certain infrastructure requirements must be in place for this to function democratically. All citizens must have access to the voting system (which is not to say that they must have access to the rest of the internet). Every citizen must also have a unique identification, preferably biometric to minimize the opportunities for falsification. Furthermore the system must be beyond the reach of hackers, viruses or other forms of intrusion or damage.
All issues of importance should be open to voting and every vote must be equal. Issues of a routine or mundane nature should be handled by the government employees working in the relevant areas. The voting procedure may have certain restrictions to promote lucid decision making. I suggest that before voting on an issue the relevant facts and issues should be presented to the voter, where possible this may take a multimedia format such as videos, images, animations, etc. Also before a citizen can vote on an issue they must pass test on the subject matter (given in a simple format) to be sure the citizen has a coherent understanding of the issue being voted on.
There may be certain restrictions placed on voting. An age limit, those under 16 cannot vote. Those in jail cannot vote. Those in medical care homes due to mental disorders may not vote. Those charged with inciting hatred or violence may not vote, this would be proven members of extremist or terrorist organisations.
When a vote is cast it would form part of a poll on the policy. This poll should be then be taken up by the government body involved in the policy and executed. If there is some controversy about the possible consequences of following the poll the issues should be restated to the public and the poll retaken. The actions of those responsible for changing polls into policy or decisions should be fully in the public domain and open to scrutiny by the people.
Votes cast should be changeable at any point before the poll is taken into action. The information provided to the voters should be equally changeable. This allows new information on an issue to alter the polls and the eventual policy or decisions being made.
The system should be highly reactive and adaptable. If a citizen does not agree with any options available when voting they may include their own suggestion and if the suggestion is made by enough voters it should be included in the poll. Also decisions which have been made on policy should be stated openly. This should allow the decision pathway to be followed both in the moment and in history. It should also make spotting any inconsistencies between the polls and the policy obvious.
Suggestions for new policy or issues could be made. If such issues attract a critical mass of interest the polls could become relevant in generating actual policy or effect actual decision making.
The government would be formed of bureaucrats hired according to their credentials relevant to the job they will perform. Their voting history may play a role, for instance how active are they, do their decisions usually follow the pattern of others, etc. Their performance where relevant to important decisions would be in the public domain. They would not be directly voted on by the people; however their performance must be adequate to maintain the position. Furthermore the positions would be open to solicitation at all times. This should lead to a large list of potential candidates for most positions and an incentive for the bureaucrats to perform well.
Those bureaucrats heading individual ministries should be appointed through polling of candidates with sufficient qualifications. These bureaucrats are responsible for making hiring decisions within their ministry. However, like other bureaucrats they can be replaced if their performance drops, or specific to their position as heads of ministries if the polls pass a threshold against them.
The maintenance of the voting system would be performed by government employees with changes being tracked in an open manner similar to that used to track changes made to Wikipedia pages. Issues of importance must be informed by professional bodies, possibly non-governmental under certain conditions. These bodies must research issues and present their findings to the public domain. The information in their reports may come with suggestions, however, the choice of action on those suggestions should lie with the voters.
For example the issue of insurance costs would be investigated by a group of economists dedicated to the issue for a set time. They would explore the cost-benefit relationships in the various involved areas, including health care costs and income brackets of the population. Their report would be presented at the site of voting. The report may provide suggestions but should be presented without obvious bias. The report should also be open to criticism and editing if necessary. This would allow those with little knowledge of the issue to cover the basic issues before voting.
By removing the political parties the system should allow issue by issue representation of the people. The largest hurdle to overcome with introduction of the system is that it requires an upheaval of the existing form of government. The mass of information processing which will need to be performed will be phenomenal and is perhaps beyond our current capabilities. There will also need to be a massive investment to develop the infrastructure and the technology required for the infrastructure. However, it is obvious that such a change will not happen overnight, so there is still time for the technology to be developed should such a form of government be desired.
The strength of this proposition for a new form of government, is in providing hope for the future. There are many people who have become disillusioned with the current system democracy. Imperfect as it is, it has been further bastardised around the world into a very limited choice between one of just a few (often two) political parties. The great missionary of democracy, USA, has a leader whose first election was irregular to the point of being undemocratic. Combined with the erosion of civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism, current trends spell disaster for the citizens of the future. It is not hard to imagine the instillation of a military dictatorship a la 1984 at some point in the future, if things don’t change.
There is already some movement towards the introduction of an e-government i.e. the use of information technology into the present voting system and increased citizen involvement in government. This could provide a stepping stone towards a political party free form of government by the people.
Chimed Jansen
On the 1st of December Holland added 186 species of mushroom to its list of controlled substances known as the Opium Law. They have been placed in list II (soft drugs), which includes cannabis and a range of prescription drugs. The species added include the varieties commonly known as “magic mushrooms”, which contain psilocin and psilocybin and two species of Amanita mushrooms, containing muscimol and ibotenic acid. The move has raised a lot of questions in Holland as Minister of Health, Sport and Safety, Abraham Klink of the Christian Democrat Appeal party, has ignored the advice of studies commissioned by the government, failed to explain his position when questioned and rushed the list into law without allowing adequate time for debate.
Abraham Klink clearly has a strong opinion on the matter, but is it a sound opinion? We naturally think in terms of anecdotes, not science. That is to say incidents sway us and we normally make up our minds up without all worrying about statistical validity. The stronger the emotional response to the incident, the less likely we are to make a cool judgment of the facts. Of course if you hold certain views to begin with, you may not be very receptive to facts, particularly those which contradict your view. However a sound opinion should be without such bias and based on the evidence at hand.
There are several reports of incidents which have occurred during the previous years in which people have died following the use of magic mushrooms, although the actual use of the mushrooms have not always been verified. These events on their own give a visceral instinct to believe the magic mushrooms are a danger to society and should be removed from it through legislation. Such a belief is more easily accepted and difficult to remove if one believes that the use of drugs to alter one’s state of mind is wrong in itself. However the causal relationship between the deaths and mushrooms are far from clear. As Freek de Wolff, Professor of Toxicology at Leiden University Medical Center stated, “there are no scientific grounds for making Magic Mushrooms illegal.” (1)
It is important to realize that the active ingredients are not harmful, so we are not talking about toxic overdoses. (2) The reported deaths involve suicide like events, such as jumping from windows in high buildings. In most cases the individuals used alcohol, tobacco, cannabis or other drugs at the same time. They were often foreigners, taking the mushrooms for the first time, in busy and unfamiliar places, with disturbed mental states and without supervision. These conditions are exactly those under which the user guidelines provided by smartshops, and the smartshop staff, advise against use. When this is taken into account a lack of care by the user, and perhaps a failure by some of the smartshops to adequately inform them, becomes increasingly relevant. So a real danger does exist in the use of mushrooms, but it is not the mushrooms which are the cause.
What is the likely outcome of making magic mushrooms illegal? Use will continue, the failure of prohibition is proven by the continued scale required to enforce it. Simple economics tells us that, where there is a demand, there will be a supply. There is always someone greedy, ignorant or desperate enough to take the risks required to deliver that supply, no matter what legislation is in place. What will change, will be the information provided to potential users and the quality of the product. Klink has said that what he doesn’t like about Magic Mushrooms is their unpredictability. Just wait until users take mushrooms they buy on the street, or find in the woods, with no information, or guarantee that what they are taking is even a safe mushroom: That will give truly unpredictable results!
Perhaps this is the reason the mayor of Amsterdam Job Cohen is against the prohibition of Magic Mushrooms and prefers instead a more controlled distribution, with a three day delay for first time buyers, so they have time to find out more about the drug and perhaps look into why they want to do it and how they plan to do it. (3)
A risk assessment of Magic Mushrooms was performed by the RIVM in both 2000 and 2007. (4) The results showed the risk to society resulting from magic mushrooms was in fact lower in 2007 than in 2000 due to the improved dissemination of information. The RIVM advised that the mushrooms remain available through the smartshops and that smartshops continue to improve the information which they provide to customers. They were also explicit on the point that making magic mushrooms illegal would most probably increase their risk to society, for instance through users switching to more dangerous drugs.
There is another side which is rarely considered in this debate: What makes a consenting adult choose to take mushrooms? The experiences elicited by mushrooms are often positive and often give lasting benefit to the user. Introspective experiences can lead to the confrontation and resolution of psychological issues, resulting in reduced stress levels. Furthermore some users may have mystical experiences, which inspire them and give renewed strength and purpose to their lives. A report in Nature (5) stated that such experiences can lead to improved moods even a year after the event.
“This experience has a compelling meaningfulness and spiritual component to it that is strongly conserved over time,” argues the study's lead author, Roland Griffiths of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. (5)
Of course it is impossible to know for sure, but it is not inconceivable that more lives have been saved through the use of Magic Mushrooms than lost. After all their use as a tool in medicine dates back thousands of years. One of the most famous healers was Maria Sabina, a Mazatec Indian from Mexico. During her life as a healer she is said to have cured many ailments and illnesses through the use of magic mushrooms.
It is largely due to an emphasis on set and setting that both traditional use and therapeutic use of magic mushrooms has been able to make such a remarkably positive impact. This underlines the point that it is not the magic mushrooms which are a danger, but ignorance in the user. How this problem will be addressed by making magic mushrooms illegal escapes me. Perhaps a policy of tolerance could be adopted to avoid the negative impact likely to result from the recently passed magic mushroom laws, much as has been practiced for that other list II drug, cannabis.
By Chimed Jansen
1) http://www.trimbos.nl/default23947.html
2) http://www.springerlink.com/content/lbmth016rdvf0dr4/fulltext.pdf
3) http://www.nu.nl/news/1417889/10/Meer_paddo%27s_over_de_toonbank.html
4) http://www.rivm.nl/preventie/leefstijl/drugs/cam.jsp#tcm:4-38605
5) http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080703/full/news.2008.934.html
How long will global uranium deposits fuel the world's nuclear reactors at present consumption rates?
Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer:
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.
Most of the 2.8 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity generated worldwide from nuclear power every year is produced in light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.
According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.
Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.
Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
Editor's Note: This question was submitted by G. Peck of Seward, Alaska and will be printed in the March 2009 issue of Scientific American.
Dear editor,
I'm a great fan of Sciam and am usually content with the content. However, having done a bit of research on nuclear power myself, I found this months Ask the Experts article on global uranium deposits anything but expert. This answer lacks integrity at best and is otherwise simply misleading. First of all an expert would have pointed out that consumption of uranium deposits is rising, so while valid as an exercise, calculating future reserves at current consumption will overestimate reserves.
From: http://www.rcresearch.com.au/
"There are 376 new nuclear reactors planned or proposed globally as of Dec ’08, up from 318 Aug ’08 (+58 units, +18%). The main increases are UAE (11), Italy (10), UK (6), Vietnam (6), and Poland (5). ... Currently there are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation and 39
under construction. A total of 61 new reactors are expected to be
commissioned by 2014."
Secondly Steve Fetter uses the NEA as his single source of information. This would be fine if the source were an independent organisation with balanced information. However, the NEA is an organisation which is focused on the expansion of nuclear power as an energy source. Deposits as reported by the NEA are presumed to be of equal quality, however the quality of deposits are known to vary and the highest quality deposits are consumed first and will finish in decades. This means counting tonnes of uranium left is not to count energy equivalent tonnes of uranium. The last paragraph of the article is simply unworthy of Sciam. Price is far from the only problem with these technologies. Fastbreeders are not technologically feasible now and safety concerns mean they might never become feasible. As for extracting uranium from sea water, this is a fallacy. The energy required is simply more than will be produced from the collected uranium.
See the following for an example of a more complete analysis of uranium deposits:
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
For the love of Sciam, please make sure your experts have more than 15 minutes to research their topic of expertise next time.
Thank you,
Chimed Jansen
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam
Big problems need big solutions
 |  | VIEWPOINT Tim Lenton |
Climate change is a massive problem that needs big and bold solutions, says Professor Tim Lenton. In this week's Green Room, he outlines the reasons why "geo-engineering" projects, such as reflecting sunlight back into space, could help win the battle against dangerous climate change.
The climate is undoubtedly changing, and it is changing faster than many scientists thought it would, especially in the Arctic.
Regardless of the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities increased by 3% per year during 2000-2006.
Even if we can globally get our act together and reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, we are still heading for at least a 2C (3.6F) warmer world.
|   Who today is willing to commit future generations to collectively controlling the planetary thermostat?  |
This may be too much for elements of the climate system, including the Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheet, which could pass a tipping point on the way there.
The resulting climate change may well be "dangerous"; and if so, mitigation alone cannot avoid it.
But reducing CO2 emissions is not the only way. There are two "geo-engineering" approaches that could complement it: reflecting more sunlight back to space, or actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Both aim to cool the planet; but one tackles the symptoms (higher temperatures) while the other, like mitigation, addresses the underlying cause (elevated CO2 concentrations).
But do these approaches really offer a silver bullet to solve the climate problem?
From mirrors in space to reflective roofs on our homes, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs could counteract (to varying degrees) the extra heat radiation trapped by the increasing greenhouse effect.
For a given option, the strength of the cooling effect is determined by the change in reflectivity applied, the area it is applied over, and the altitude of application.
Air-cooled
Among the most potent options is injecting tiny sulphur particles into the stratosphere to scatter more sunlight.
In principle, this could counteract the projected warming resulting from the future concentrations of atmospheric CO2 up to at least twice the pre-industrial level.
 Volcanoes show us what impacts some schemes might have |
Such options might be developed within decades, and if they are deployed, their cooling effect would be very fast acting.
However, the cooling effect will also be short-lived, so if activities start on a global scale (which is necessary for them to be effective), there will need to be a commitment to maintain them for many centuries.
Stopping the activity would result in dangerously rapid climate warming, far worse than the steadier warming they were designed to counteract.
In effect, such technologies imply an unprecedented duration and level of international co-operation to maintain them.
Who today is willing to commit future generations to collectively controlling the planetary thermostat?
There are also undesirable side effects of this kind of medicine.
We know from past volcanic eruptions that reducing incoming sunlight weakens the water cycle, promoting drought in regions including India and the Sahel in northern Africa.
Growing attraction
So, what about the other geo-engineering approach?
| There is no simple silver bullet among the geo-engineering options, but some could make an invaluable contribution |
From planting trees or fertilising the ocean to chemical "scrubbing", there are several ways of creating carbon "sinks" to remove CO2 from the air.
In general, these options act more slowly and progressively than those that reflect sunlight.
CO2 removal activity has to be ramped up and maintained for several decades (and in some cases centuries) for it to have a significant effect on atmospheric CO2 and climate.
For it to be truly effective, the carbon must be transferred to a long-lived reservoir such as charcoal in soil, or geological storage for liquid CO2.
The proposals vary greatly in their potential effectiveness, which of course also depends on the area or scale of application.
Perhaps the most potent option, on the century timescale at least, is to grow plants to get CO2 out of the air and then convert their biomass to both charcoal and (bio)fuels.
|   |
The charcoal would be added to soil as "biochar" and the fuels used for combustion, but ideally with capture of the CO2 and transfer to geological reserves.
The attraction of such an approach is that it produces energy and heat as well as agricultural benefits, and might (according to some estimates) generate revenue.
Most, if not all, other geo-engineering schemes will cost money and thus rely on willingness to pay.
The climate side-effects of creating carbon sinks are generally less than for sunlight reflection options, but the socio-economic side effects may be considerable.
Follow the money
So where do we go next? Many fear that even discussing geo-engineering options undermines mitigation efforts.
But mitigation alone may not be able to avoid dangerous climate change, so we must consider what other activities could complement it.
There is no simple silver bullet among the geo-engineering options, but some could make an invaluable contribution.
 Adding iron to sea water could stimulate the growth of algae |
Potent and rapidly deployable sunlight reflection options could be held in reserve as an emergency response should we get some early warning of approaching tipping points.
The creation of significant CO2 sinks is just as valid as reducing the sources of the greenhouse gas, because the atmosphere cannot tell the difference.
Together, they give the best chance to stabilise atmospheric CO2 and ultimately reduce it.
But economic assessment of the various geo-engineering options is badly needed, because cost will likely determine which, if any, are deployed.
Ultimately climate change is a problem of risk management. There is already a substantial risk of dangerous impacts, even if we do start meaningful global mitigation of CO2 emissions.
Given this context we must weigh up the balance of risks of using, or not using, geo-engineering. 
Professor Tim Lenton is an Earth system scientist based in the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
All geo-engineering projects contain great uncertainty and applying them risks compounding the many challenges facing humanity instead of alleviating them. To be effective such efforts will require great effort and international cooperation. If this effort were applied to mitigation, through for example, reducing damage to primary forests, reducing fossil fuel consumption, changing dietary habits, controlling population, etc, the effective change in CO2 levels might well be the same. Mitigation has the additional benefit that most methods result in positive 'risks' which may aid humanity, such as protecting biodiversity, reserving fossil fuels for alternative uses or alleviating poverty.
Chimed, Amsterdam
This can be applied on the individual level or the level of society. On the individual level I see this as a statement that transformation has to occur in a sustainable manner. Destroying what you don't like about yourself won't work. While trying to reinvent yourself won't work either. Both these processes divide the mind delivering instability at best and insanity at worst. Transformation has to come from within the working of the ordinary state of mind.
My interpretation of its application to society is that to bring about the change you desire you should neither attempt to create an external society to replace the original, nor should you destroy the existing society in the hopes of replacing it. Rather society must be transformed from within. External societies which hope to show the way are ridiculed or ignored by the masses. Or if they are acknowledged the life styles of those societies are seen as too radically different and the paths to them are seen as too difficult to follow. On the other hand destructive changes focus solely on the problems with the current society without cultivating a meaningful alternative. This means their success will inevitably be their destruction with the additional cost of disillusioning, alienating and causing suffering to both members and the society they objected. Of course acting from within has its own dangers. Conformity is subtle and while one may begin with the idea of changing society, once integrated the seduction of security, distraction of the meaningless and comfort of sloth can dull any ambitions of change you may have had. Time will tell.
So how does this relate to me? Well I see several problems in our current society which I would like to acknowledge, describe and ultimately change. Not alone of course, because in a society nothing happens alone, however every group is made of individuals and its important to make statements yourself once in a while. Voting once every few years alone is to do mere lip service to democracy. The great freedom of democracy is that we can make our views known and spread ideas which, if they reach critical mass, become part of politics and have a chance to be realised.
