Beautiful British Columbia

I think it's important to make time to play, especially outside, and especially after a gray winter. So yesterday I drove up to Squamish, BC and hiked The Chief. There are three peaks to explore, and I hiked to Second Peak back in September. This time I took the short route to First Peak. Although it wasn't as high as the one I'd visited previously, the view was more spectacular. Check out these photos!

Future Man

Whoever made this was a genius. (click on the photo to enlarge)


And yes, I do agree that posting this on my blog is a bit ironic.

Responsibility to Protect

This semester, I have dedicated a lot of time and energy to the study of complex emergencies, or complex humanitarian emergencies, as they are often called. This includes instances of state failure, civil wars, genocide, and more. In 2001, Canada led the charge in promoting the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) approach to intervention by the international community in such situations. One of the masterminds behind the approach is the International Crisis Group's Gareth Evans. He gave an excellent speech on the topic back in December. I recently accessed the text online and read it over. The main gist follows.

The Responsibility To Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All

By Gareth Evans

...The core idea is very simple. Turn the notion of 'right to intervene' upside down. Talk not about the 'right' of big states to do anything, but the responsibility of all states to protect their own people from atrocity crimes, and to help others to do so. Talk about the primary responsibility being that of individual states themselves - respecting their sovereignty - but make it absolutely clear that if they cannot meet that responsibility, through either ill-will or incapacity, it then shifts to the wider international community to take the appropriate action.

Focus not on the notion of 'intervention' but of protection: look at the whole issue from the perspective of the victims, the men being killed, the women being raped, the children dying of starvation; and look at the responsibility in question as being above all a responsibility to prevent, with the question of reaction - through diplomatic pressure, through sanctions, through international criminal prosecutions, and ultimately through military action - arising only if prevention failed. And accept coercive military intervention only as an absolute last resort, after a number of clearly defined criteria have been met, and the approval of the Security Council has been obtained...

FULL ADDRESS AVAILABLE AT http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5830&l=1

Are you an environmentalist or an economist?

Carbon tax? Cap and trade? Climate change economics can be exhausting and complicated. But I just found a great article that breaks the whole thing down in a very understandable way. Yes, Mother Jones is a little biased as a publication, but the reporters are stellar communicators. And I love me some good reporting. The gist? I'm much more of an environmentalist than economist. Vote cap and trade.

FROM MOTHER JONES

March/April 2009

By Kevin Drum

Though it's not been mentioned much lately amid the sea of bailout headlines, the global economy isn't the only thing melting down right now. So are the polar ice caps. As NASA climatologist James Hansen has warned, we are nearing—if we haven't already passed—the tipping point at which the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere becomes so high that feedback loops will cause it to keep increasing on its own even if humans never emit another CO₂ molecule again. To keep the planet habitable, he says, we must cut emissions not 10, not 20, but a full 80 percent by 2050; anything short of that will lead to "global cataclysm."

Fine then. We need to fix the climate, and we need to start yesterday. President Obama plainly understands this. His environmental rhetoric has focused mainly on things like wind farms and green jobs, but the backbone of his climate policy is actually an ambitious program that, if done right, will reduce greenhouse gases and raise desperately needed revenue—and, most important of all, has a fighting chance of making it through the congressional sausage factory in one piece. If he sticks to his guns, the idea will be a household term before the year is out. It's called cap and trade, and it springs from a simple yet surprisingly hard-to-answer question: What's the best, and fastest, way to reduce pollution?

Read More...

I Still Think You Have To Live Your Life On Fire...

I have never been sure what is meant by talk about a "wasted" life or not letting life "pass you by." I think for most people, that which constitutes a meaningful life varies greatly. Because people have different priorities, there is no clear "right" way to live your life. But recently, I have begun to reevaluate my own criteria for such qualification. I am not one to sit idly. I'd say my soul is pretty impassioned (and restless), so for me it is most logical to judge my life from the perspective of action. For a long time, I have repeatedly asked myself Am I doing what I want to be doing? Am I getting as much out of my life as I possibly can? And then not long ago, I began to reevaluate my standards.

Finding myself in doubt of the questions I most commonly ask myself, I began to wonder if perhaps I was unsatisfied with the answers, and simply trying to justify "wasting" my life away. Thankfully, after much introspection, I realized that in fact I am quite happy with what I am doing. I get a lot out of life in every moment! But I also realized that the questions I was asking myself may not have been the right questions. They were important questions, certainly, but they were too self-centered to be accurate indicators of how well I am living my life. After all, life isn't just about me. It's about the world. I preach that all the time! So I turned the questions around. Instead of judging myself by how much I am getting out of this world, I began to percolate on the idea of what I am putting into this world.

At first it seemed I was having a fundamental change of heart. My new standards for judging my own life seemed to be the opposite of my old ones. I wondered if such a swing would force me to dramatically change my habits and my hobbies. I began to remind myself several times a day that I needed to judge myself from the perspective of contribution. Contribution -- that is not the opposite of action. In fact, it is a type action. Was my new approach narrower than my old one? I usually recoil at the thought of narrowness. I like to take as wide an approach to understanding and judging as possible. After all, this is a big, big world. But in thinking about my new question (Are you contributing as much as you can to your world?), I concluded that this is actually a much wider perspective than my previous approach. Even though contribution seems narrower than action, my new perspective embodies my old one.

The world is a closed system. What goes around, comes around. That which we put in eventually returns to us (usually in some new form). By recognizing and prioritizing contribution, and by focusing on putting in, I can still engineer what I get out of life. Only by focusing on contributing to your world can you see that you are also controlling what your world gives you. After realizing that asking myself about what I am putting into my world also captures my need to get as much out of my world that I can, I realized that my original question of introspection still applies. Am I doing what I want to be doing? But instead of determining that want from the perspective of getting what I want, I have to focus on giving what I want.

Focusing on contribution doesn't mean giving everything all the time. It doesn't even mean that I have to be contributing all the time. The importance of the question is that it forces me to be aware of how generous I am, how cooperative I am, and how much I am putting in versus taking out. It's too exhausting to constantly be concerned with the welfare of everyone else. Sometimes we do need to focus on ourselves. Over-emphasizing the importance of contribution can actually create tasks so daunting that we paralyze ourselves, and as a result we end up contributing very little. But recognizing contribution, by extension, leads to a recognition of the balance between give and take. Giving a little more to your world can lead to some surprising gets, as well. I'll never stop judging my life from the perspective of action. I am a do-er. But I am also a thinker, and I think that now I have a better understanding how to live, love, and do.

Using my new question, I realize there are changes to be made in my life, mostly small ones. I have begun to recognize the plethora of opportunities to contribute. I have found I actually have a lot more to share that I thought. I am also beginning to find the limitations of what I can contribute. As a consequence, I have become more aware of what other people can contribute, as well. I'm seeing the big picture in a different way than I have before. I judge people not by what they are trying to get out of the world or make the world do for them (although in many cases I have found quite noble answers to those questions). Now I judge people by their value to society. The theory of evolution suggests that we are all given skills and talents to promote not just our personal welfare, but the survival and advancement of our entire species. Ah yes, this new perspective is indeed much wider than the old. I see a bigger picture than I ever have before. But at the same time, I am realizing that this perspective works in the micro as well as it works in the macro. I can judge not just my life from the perspective of contribution, but also my relationships.

It is still important for me to get as much out of life as I can. Especially in school, I strive to get, absorb, obtain. But I also see that despite my relative ignorance, there is a lot I can give. I can cooperate with my fellow students more. By extension, cooperating means I'll get more out of it, too! So many times has cogitation led me to the conclusion that the right answer is a balanced one. I am starting to understand the most general and universal notion of "living life right." It's about balancing the give and the take. But to do that, we have to be equally aware of what we put in and what we take out.