George Will writes about boys who won't become men in this week's Newsweek. George decries the fact that the median age at which boys marry or leave home is going up. He makes some good points but misses the context of extended boyhood: we're living longer.
Life expectancy goes up about 3 months a year. This works out to about 2.5 years per decade or about 5 to 7 years per generation.
So, let's say that we still left home and married at 14, as people did only a century or so ago when life expectancy was about 40-some years. Is that really how much preparation we want them to have for work and parenting? Do we expect 14 year olds to choose who they'll be married to at 85?
If the next generation gets married two years later than their dads and then retires four years later than their dads, they'll still end up married and retired for longer than their dads. That is what happens when life expectancy goes up each generation.
It is not just old age that now lasts longer. So does youth. That life stages - from youth to middle age to old age - would all extend for longer as life itself lasts longer makes every kind of sense to me. But I guess saying that wouldn't make for a very interesting column.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
Showing posts with label george will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label george will. Show all posts
03 March 2010
07 February 2007
George Will & Climate Change Denial
I like George Will. As near as I can tell, he doesn't default to a strictly conservative position and seems to differentiate himself by actually thinking through whatever topic he is writing about. But he's published a column this week about global warming in which he counters these points, which he attributes to advocates of action for climate change:
1. Global warming is happening.
2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault.
3. It will continue unless we mend our ways.
4. If it continues we are in grave danger.
5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming.
6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
It's a gutsy move on his part, coming as it does on the heels of the new report from the UN that confirms that this is a serious issue. (And as a general rule, if I have to choose between scientists and talk show hosts on a topic, I'm going to feel a serious bias towards the scientists.) But these are points that are consistently made and deserve to be refuted.
1. Global warming is happening.
Will allows that this is true but dismisses the warming as trivial. But you don't look at past data for an indication of whether or not to take the impending train wreck seriously - you look at projections.
2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault.
The data on carbon dioxide build up is fairly incontrovertible. In the last hundred years, carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere have gone up about 50%, and have risen steadily since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. The science suggesting that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature is not in debate. The data that explains past and predicts future temperature increases is also not in debate. I'm not sure who rejects this point. (Oh, wait. I am sure. It's the talk show hosts who are, apparently, smarter than thousands of scientists.)
3. It will continue unless we mend our ways.
This point follows from 2., explaining why George Will has to pretend that global warming is not clearly the result of human activity.
4. If it continues we are in grave danger.
George Will makes the odd point of pretending to be a relativist, asking "Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?" This is an absurd question. If temperatures rise sufficiently, some of the largest cities in the world will be flooded. I guess someone could ask rather abstractly whether the folks in Palm Springs aren't as deserving of coastal property as the folks in La Jolla, but such a question brushes away some fairly expensive consequences as inconsequential.
5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming.
This is the first of the points George Will makes that seems fabricated. We do know that we need to cut carbon emissions. We don't know how to do that while maintaining economic prosperity. The real point is that we need to determine how best to slow or reverse and to pretend that points 2 through 4 are inconsequential or fabricated is the only way to pretend that actually answering 5. is of no consequence.
6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
George Will suggests that any action we would take would have disastrous economic implications. To that one can point to the disastrous economic consequences of military spending - another big initiative undertaken by economies as a precaution that has not seemed to undermine economies. To automatically assume that there is some conflict between preserving our economy and our habitat is to be rather unclear about an economy, it would seem to me.
We are at least a decade past the point of pretending that fine prose is a substitute for honestly confronting this problem. George Will's column is, this time, a poor example of denial from a man who usually delights in forcing readers to face uncomfortable truths.
1. Global warming is happening.
2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault.
3. It will continue unless we mend our ways.
4. If it continues we are in grave danger.
5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming.
6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
It's a gutsy move on his part, coming as it does on the heels of the new report from the UN that confirms that this is a serious issue. (And as a general rule, if I have to choose between scientists and talk show hosts on a topic, I'm going to feel a serious bias towards the scientists.) But these are points that are consistently made and deserve to be refuted.
1. Global warming is happening.
Will allows that this is true but dismisses the warming as trivial. But you don't look at past data for an indication of whether or not to take the impending train wreck seriously - you look at projections.
2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault.
The data on carbon dioxide build up is fairly incontrovertible. In the last hundred years, carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere have gone up about 50%, and have risen steadily since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. The science suggesting that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature is not in debate. The data that explains past and predicts future temperature increases is also not in debate. I'm not sure who rejects this point. (Oh, wait. I am sure. It's the talk show hosts who are, apparently, smarter than thousands of scientists.)
3. It will continue unless we mend our ways.
This point follows from 2., explaining why George Will has to pretend that global warming is not clearly the result of human activity.
4. If it continues we are in grave danger.
George Will makes the odd point of pretending to be a relativist, asking "Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?" This is an absurd question. If temperatures rise sufficiently, some of the largest cities in the world will be flooded. I guess someone could ask rather abstractly whether the folks in Palm Springs aren't as deserving of coastal property as the folks in La Jolla, but such a question brushes away some fairly expensive consequences as inconsequential.
5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming.
This is the first of the points George Will makes that seems fabricated. We do know that we need to cut carbon emissions. We don't know how to do that while maintaining economic prosperity. The real point is that we need to determine how best to slow or reverse and to pretend that points 2 through 4 are inconsequential or fabricated is the only way to pretend that actually answering 5. is of no consequence.
6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
George Will suggests that any action we would take would have disastrous economic implications. To that one can point to the disastrous economic consequences of military spending - another big initiative undertaken by economies as a precaution that has not seemed to undermine economies. To automatically assume that there is some conflict between preserving our economy and our habitat is to be rather unclear about an economy, it would seem to me.
We are at least a decade past the point of pretending that fine prose is a substitute for honestly confronting this problem. George Will's column is, this time, a poor example of denial from a man who usually delights in forcing readers to face uncomfortable truths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)