Category: Opinion Pieces

The ongoing furore over global warming has me both amused and dismayed. Advocates on all sides of the issue express an insane degree of fanaticism. Indeed, the fanatics on all sides are shouting so loudly that more moderate voices are drowned out completely, regardless what side of the issue they are on. In fact, the same can be said for all facets of the environmental movement.

First, let me say that I have not done detailed climatological research. I am not a climate expert. I do not profess to know anything novel about the situation.

Before I begin, defining terms is important. First, global warming itself simply means that the Earth is, on average, getting warmer. The term “global warming” does not say anything about how or why the warming is happening. It is merely a name for the phenomenon.

On the other hand, “anthropogenic global warming” is the theory that the earth is getting warmer due to the actions of humanity. In this case, a cause is implied in the term. In fact, other causes can be implied as well. For instance, “solargenic global warming” could be used to describe global warming caused by increased solar output.

For the remainder of this commentary, I will use the abbreviations GW and AGW for “global warming” and “anthropogenic global warming”.

Most commentators on the issue of global warming conflate GW with AGW. There is a surprising amount of sloppiness in terminology among all commentators. The implication that all GW must be AGW is absolutely false. There are many factors that can lead to an overall change in global temperature. The sun could put out more or less energy in a given time frame. Greenhouse gas concentrations could increase or decrease. There may be more or less dust between the Earth and the Sun. Human activity could release additional heat into the atmosphere. The global climate is not a simple mechanism and accurate records are only available for a fraction more than a century, and even then, many of those are of dubious accuracy or woefully incomplete.

The Earth’s climate is changing. Indeed, I agree with the experts that it is probably warming. Thus, I am clearly not in the camp denying GW. However, I am realist enough to accept evidence that disagrees or casts doubt on GW, on on the magnitude of the change.

The sticky issue is AGW. Is AGW real? I would be surprised if humans have no effect on the climate. The mind boggling number of us all putting out whatever amount of heat and CO₂ via metabolism must have some sort of effect. So, too, must deforestation, industrialization, mining, and so on. So I agree that AGW is real.

The primary factor cited in AGW is greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO₂. Certainly, humans put out a substantial amount of CO₂, but does it even measure compared to the emissions from forest fires, volcanic activity, and other ongoing natural processes? It seems human activity is small in comparison. However, in a complex system such as the global climate, a small change in initial conditions can lead to a marked change in the results. So I am prepared to accept that CO₂ emissions may well be making a substantial impact on the global climate.

CO₂ is not the only greenhouse gas. Water, for instance, is a greenhouse gas. And, indeed, it may contribute substantially more to the greenhouse effect than CO₂ does. Water may also be responsible for other climate effects simply due to its vast ability to store heat ,however obtained. So why all the concentration on CO₂? Because it is something we can change. Even so, it’s not clear that we can actually make a marked difference in the overall climate even if we did so.

Of course, I have ignored so far whether we should even bother doing anything about GW, even if we can.

Most commentators assume that there is One True Temperature that must be maintained. This is such an ingrained assumption that most are unaware of it. It is also patently ridiculous. There is credible evidence that the Earth has been both warmer and cooler in anthropologically recent times. That means that modern humans or their recent ancestors have survived both warmer and cooler periods. So we must throw out the One True Temperature assumption.

Once we discard the notion of One True Temperature, it would seem obvious that GW should be allowed to run its course. This, too, is patently absurd. Suppose natural or anthropogenic (or both) climate effects push the global climate to the point that it impairs the survival of humanity? Should we not do everything in our power to survive? That is, after all, how humans are wired. So, while the One True Temperature notion is absurd, it does not mean that we should not attempt to engineer the climate such that it is advantageous for human survival. Indeed, humans are engineers and have been since the first cave men began to use tools.

So, should we do anything about AGW? Perhaps. But exactly what will be effective is unclear. Reduction in CO₂ emissions may be practical or it may not. Reforestation may be practical or it may not. Massive population reduction would almost certainly help but is unlikely. Other activities may prove helpful as well. Let me examine the three above briefly, however.

First, let’s examine CO₂ reduction. It gets all the press on climate change and there is actual action being taken on the matter, though the long term effectiveness those actions will have is unclear. Many of these actions will have substantial economic cost which must be borne indefinitely. Are those costs warranted in the name of preventing GW? (That is not a typo; even if AGW is not the prime moving factor, reduction in anthropogenic factors could still have an effect.) Probably not, since eventually humans will come up with a survival solution, even if there is great pain in the mean time. However, many of the sources of CO₂ emissions generate pollution of other sorts as well. These pollutants, CO₂ included, reduce air quality and make life less pleasant. I submit that improved air quality is, perhaps, a better reason for the current CO₂ reduction efforts. Indeed, on those grounds alone, I am in favour of reasonable efforts to reduce emissions. If it turns out to have beneficial effects on the global climate, all the better. And local air quality is something I can see on a daily basis and the effects of emission reduction on air quality are often apparent almost immediately.

I mentioned also reforestation. By this, I mean increasing vegetation in general. This will usually be reforestation, particularly in tropical climes. When sold as simply a climate change mitigation measure, it is of dubious merit, although it should have an effect. Replanting forests and other vegetation prevents loss of habitat for animals as well, a reason that is easier to sell. But the most selfish reason of all is that it opens up more natural areas to enjoy. That’s right, I’m talking about tourism. If tourism can be a motivating factor to do something right by the environment, or at least more right, and possible improve the climate in the long term, then why should we stand in the way?

The last action I mentioned was dramatic population reduction. This would, no doubt, be very unpopular with most people. An immediate population reduction is trivial to engineer but not terribly legal. However, rapid population declines are not required to have an impact. The global population could easily be reduced substantially over the course of several generations by restricting the number of children permitted to a breeding couple. This would be a tough sell, culturally, in many parts of the world, but such a policy is not a novel thing. As far as the impact on the global climate, it seems fairly obvious. A substantial reduction in the number of humans would obviously make a substantial reduction in anthropogenic climate inputs; there would be less land required for agriculture, cities, and so on. There would be less fuel consumption. And, as a major benefit, if the right populations were reduced, there would be a substantial reduction in starvation and disease. So long term population reduction or stabilization seems to be a clear win, even if it has no impact on GW.

The point of the previous three paragraphs is that there are a great many things that can be done to improve the climate. Most of these things have other beneficial effects. In light of these beneficial effects, it is surprising how much resistance there is to them. My contention is that most of the resistance is due to the particularly fanatical environmentalist camps which are promoting them at the expense of continued economic health. After all, if the economy completely tanks (more so than the recent “recession”), nobody is going to care one iota about the environment. I propose we implement what measures we can as quickly as reasonable without causing an economic crisis. If these measures prove ineffective or too little too late, we will simply adapt to the changing conditions as we always have.

Today, I was reading an article on how cursive writing is dying out. Many of the comments lament this fact while others take a “so what?” attitude. This got me thinking about the subject.

The first question that springs to many people’s minds is, “What is this cursive writing thing anyway?” Fortunately, that’s a simple enough question. Cursive writing is a form of writing designed to minimize the number of times one must lift the pen from the paper when writing. Thus, where possible, all letters are written with a single “stroke” and all letters within a word are joined. As a result, the majority of words are written with a single long pen stroke.

Cursive writing was pretty much required to have any sort of speed combined with neatness when writing was still done with quills and ink pots. One could easily end up with large blots of ink at the beginning or end of a pen stroke. However, with the advent of pencils, ballpoint pens, and so on, there is no longer any need to avoid ink blots at the start or end of pen strokes.

I will concede that cursive writing is often somewhat faster than printing, even with modern writing equipment. However, my own observations show that messy printing is often much easier to read than messy cursive. I also notice that, at least for myself, when I concenrate on legibility, most of the speed advantage of cursive disappears. Admittedly, this is likely because I haven’t made the effort to practice truly legible cursive to the point that it becomes second nature so this is not a fair test of cursive versus printing.

Now, there are several arguments against letting cursive die out. First is that it will make historical records inaccessible to the majority of the population. This argument is easily refuted, however. Historical records are irrelevant to the majority of the population. Those that wish to read them can easily learn to read cursive without spending the long hours learning to write it. This is much the same as learning archaic dialects or old languages to read old documents. Furthermore, as fewer and fewer records are kept in cursive, this problem will disappear. Since the majority of relevant historical records are probably only from the past two or three decades, after that length of time, there will likely be no difficultly experienced by those who cannot read cursive.

Another argument is that we are somehow less as a society for the loss of cursive writing. Proponents of this argument insist that cursive is an art that must be preserved, as though pretty writing is somehow important to society. This is a silly argument. Except in calligraphy circles, the point of writing in any form is communication. It always has been. It makes absolutely zero difference whether the writing is pretty or not as long as it is legible. If it can be read relatively easily by the target audience, it matters not what format it takes. The key point there is that the target audience matters. That audience is usually not future generations.

Some make the case that learning cursive writing improves fine motor control as well as hand-eye coordination. This argument I am willing to accept since writing is a very precise operation. However, it seems to me that insisting on correct printing could accomplish the same goal. In fact, precise and correct printing requires even finer motor control due to the fact that multiple pen strokes are required for many letters. Even so, I will accept that there is some value in learning cursive if only to expose the student to a different form of fine motor control.

In the modern world, the argument for posterity weakens substantially. The majority of records and documents intended for posterity are typewritten in one form or another. This means that handwriting does not even enter into the picture. It is highly unlikely that the typewritten material of today will be illegible to the generations that follow. Witness how books printed even two centuries ago are often perfectly legible, if not understandable. The precise presentation starts to be come less of an issue than the changing language itself as time passes.

The advent of extermely portable computing devices disguised as telephones has further eroded the need for efficient handwriting. Email has largely replaced letters and memoranda in both business and personal contexts. Text messaging and email have largely replaced telegrams for quick notes. These technologies are not hardwritten but rather typewritten in one form or another. Indeed, as portable computing becomes ever more ubiquitous, there will be less and less need for efficient handwriting.

And now for an observation that very few bring up. Since literacy among the general population became common, the majority of people simply do not take the time to learn to write neatly. The handwriting of the general population borders on illegible at best, and this is not a new phenomenon. So cursive writing has not been what its advocates claim it is for a very long time.

In light of the goals of writing and the modern context, I find no case for cursive writing to be preserved artificially. Printed letters are perfectly adequate for expressing thoughts when fancy typewriters and other gadgets are unavailable or impractical. (Indeed, printed letters came long before cursive!) Even today, most people can read printed letters. Furthermore, since most handwritten text is not intended for public consumption, it hardly matters how it is written, does it? Remember, if the intended audience can read it, then it is clearly sufficient for the task. That intended audience is often only the original writer these days.

I will close with one final observation. Perhaps the magnitude of the argument is partially because we are currently on the cusp of the transition from largely handwritten communication to largely typewritten communicaiton. The older people who grew up before the advent of email and text messaging remember how important clear, efficient writing was. The younger people, who have never known a world without computers and text messaging, simply see no point in learning a technique they have no use for. Given time, this debate will simply disappear. (Incidentally, I count myself among the older people who had to learn cursive writing to get by, though I and my peers are nearly the last to clearly fall into that category.)

My conclusion: let the general population use modern typewritten technology,hand printed letters, and any other communication technology they choose. Leave the preservation of cursive writing to the calligraphers and historians who will do the tradition more justice than the general population ever could.