BilikFamily.com

Young at heart - One of the great things about being surrounded by a swarm of young kids around the house is that they help you to remember what it was like so many years ago -- simpler times. While at work today, I concerned myself with how to measure the power consumption of our legacy processors running the infamous Dhrystone benchmark using only simulation. When I got home, things transformed radically. First, I picked up Timothy (aka Timbo) and held him close -- nose to nose. I love his bright yet crooked smile. It's so sincere. And he's got a heart warming laugh. He's simply a nine month old happy to be in the arms of his papa. After dinner I listened while Claire read me more pages from Charlotte's Web. We talked about how difficult it is to discern certain English words: through, though, thorough, and thought . I told her it brought back memories of when I struggled with these and similar confusing words. A little while later we shut down most of the lights in the house and let the oldest four kids play with their flashlights leftover from Halloween. They absolutely loved it - shining the spotlights all around, chasing each other in circles 'round the main loop of the house. Oh! The laughter, the camaraderie, the exhaustion they experienced afterwards. By the time I was ready for bed, my job was the last thing on my mind.

Kyoto and Pascal - Today I was reading the news, meditating on "life, the universe, and everything" when I had an unusual insight. It was an unexpected intersection of politics and faith. Today the Kyoto treaty debate (an ongoing UN debate about global warming and CO₂ emissions) got stirred up a bit as some new evidence came to light. This time the research undercut the human cause of global warming. You can see some discussion of the issue here at Slashdot. The science behind human causes of global warming is pretty shakey -- much more so than half a century ago when we tried to show the linkage of tobacco and health issues. Some, many in fact, hedge the current global warming argument along the lines of "although we're not certain humans are causing global warming, the price of doing nothing if we're right is too great. The planet is too vital! We must act now! All governments must act to drastically cut emissions!" The usual counter-arguments ensue about the costs of implementation, how it lets some countries do nothing, etc.

It reminded me of Pascal's wager. It's a classical argument regarding the existence of God that dates way back. Indirectly it also implies a consequence of heaven or hell. In simplest terms it concludes that the safest thing to do is to orient your life and actions as if God exists. The argument says if he does exist and you live accordingly, you win. If he doesn't exist but you live as if He does, you lose nothing. If He doesn't exist and you act as if he doesn't, you also lose nothing. But if He does exist, and you orient your life as if He doesn't, you lose -- and in a major way! Therefore, the argument goes, since the risks are too great, you should live your life as if He exists and as if there will be a final judgment.

Now imagine if we applied Kyoto politics in this sphere. Could you imagine the howling if the government were to assert that the risks to everyone's souls is too great! They could argue along the lines of Pascal's Wager or borrow Kyoto/environmental assertions. Imagine if the US government passed laws, signed treaties, etc. enforcing everyone to take their religion seriously because "the potential risk to souls is too high". It could be along all sorts of lines: requiring regular church, temple, synagogue attendance; monitoring your charitable giving and volunteer work; requiring breaks for prayer; regulating the entertainment media for immoral material, etc. Use your imagination.

I laugh when I think of the ACLU's reaction... or the New York Times or the Hollywood elites or ...

Mind you, I'm not, repeat not advocating such a position of mandated religiousity. Far from it. It's just a thought experiment -- one of those "what if the circumstances changed" kind of mind games. My good friend, Stu, used to love to do this to me. The parallel analogy is not perfect. If I cause the utter ruin of my soul, it may not affect you in the slightest. However, if humans do indeed have direct causation to global warming because of recent consumption trends, then yes, me driving a new Ford Explosion would affect you.

I do believe in reasonable environmental measures. I also believe there are false ones. There are also unintended consequences in human behaviors -- especially when reacting to new government regulations. Consider when regulators debated requiring child seats (and thus separate tickets) on airplanes for toddlers and infants (as in cars). While objectively it would seem the safest thing to do, it was deemed not. Requiring separate tickets and child seats would cause enough parents to just drive the highways instead that it would have resulted in a net loss of children's lives. A child is much safer on an airplane than in a car. All things being equal, it's safer to have the child who is riding an airplane in a child seat. However, mandating it changes the end result with an unintended consequence that did not take into account human behavior.

Alternatively, consider the practice of making contraceptives so widely available to teens. All things being equal, the unintended birth rate should have plummeted. However, the misconception of "safer sex" also changed attitudes and induced a dramatic spike in promiscuity. Hence, an ever larger portion of pregnancies now are unintended and out of wedlock.

It's unrealistic to believe that you can change one thing and the rest of the system stays constant. While in the scientific process, you struggle to have just one variable, in the real world there are often unintended and interlinked side effects. Any environmental policies we adopt must consider this (along with other factors). In a way I deal with this almost daily at work. If I come up with a bug fix, I need to make a reasonable effort to verify that the fix does not induce new logic errors. With the often spaghetti like interconnectedness of digital hardware, at times that seems impossible. Quick, "obvious" fixes often cause new subtle behaviors -- just like real life!.