Democracy According To Karl Popper

Democracy According To Karl Popper Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most provocative philosophers and thinkers of the twentieth century. Born in Vienna, he grew up in a city witnessing great intellectual ferment and cultural excitement. One of his most celebrated and well-known books, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, appeared in Germany in 1934; it marked Poppers decisive break with the philosophers who formed the prestigious Vienna Circle and exposed many of his most influential arguments and ideas, above all we should remember his theory on the growth of scientific knowledge. On the eve of World War Two, Poppers life took a dramatic turn: because of the threat of German invasion, in 1937 he was urged to leave his own country and he emigrated to New Zealand where, reflecting on the tyranny that was sweeping around Europe, he wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945. This work is undeniably a classic, Karl Popper decided to write it in March 1938, when the Nazis invaded Austria. This personal background says a lot about Poppers motivation for writing The Open Society, and about its main theme as well. In this book as well as in The Poverty of Historicism, he attacks totalitarianism and its intellectual supports: the attempt to impose a large-scale planning on the lives of human beings in the light of holistic and historicist considerations. In order to analyze Poppers idea of democracy we shall sets out key tenets of his social and political thought, as well as a few of problems with them. The paper will try to underline Poppers conception of human nature and show how this provides a framework for his theory of history, his critique of historicism and his conception of the open society and democracy. After considering Poppers central political values of freedom and reason, well go through the political programmes of democracy and piecemeal social engineering; after these considerations it will be possible to conclude that Popper can not sustain an exhaustive anti-dogmatism and, contrary to the philosphers own declaration, his political ideas can not be classified as liberal in any honest way. Historical and Intellectual Background Even if Popper rejected Marxism in 1919, he claimed to be a socialist till 1932; it was the socialistic ethic and its idea of justice to which he retained adherence, not its political strategies. Awareness of the growth of authoritarianism in the Soviet Union and what he saw as deficiencies in the Marxist theory and practice of Austrian social democracy pressed him to revise further his political views. Both the idea and the experience of violence were catalytic. Social democracy, by holding to their threat of achieving their objectives by violent means, were implicitly provoking state authorities to a ruthless response, Popper then adopted a more traditional, liberal political stance: deciding that freedom was more important than equality he reaffirmed his rejection of violence. The central core of Poppers social and political theory resides in The Poverty of Historicism and The Open Society and Its Enemies, regarded by the author as his war effort: they were intended as a defense of freedom against the obvious impulse towards totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Poppers further espousal of the values of reason, toleration, peaceful discussion and respect for the individual all find their predecessors in Kants moral and political philosophy. The Austrian thinker extends Kants ethical precept of criticism and self-criticism providing a foundation for his philosophy of critical rationalism and joins Kants optimistic idea and hope in the possibility of obtaining social reform and peaceful relations within and between nations. Human Nature To explain human behaviour and history Popper refuses the utility of a general theory of human nature; his conception of human nature may be found in his knowledge of biology and psychology since he considers human beings similar to any organism, in that they have inborn needs or expectations. According to the author, people tend to hold on to the uniformities they discover, become afraid of change and even wish to dominate others; so if this occurs, the failure of a regularity provokes social disorder and also encourages people to create traditions and taboos. Even though the attachment to regularities is a source of dogmatism and intolerance (attitudes which are anathema to him), Popper advocates social regularities, like social traditions, more favourably than would many other liberals. He suggests that the maintenance of traditions (by which he seems to mean culture or settled ways of thinking and acting) brings order and predictability into our lives and even provides the founda tion of social structures: the important political task is to discriminate between valuable and harmful traditions. This conception of human nature has direct implications for the sort of society he wants to promote and the principles by which it is to be guided. He suggests a slow, gradual reform because this kind of change will not suddenly remove the traditions to which people have become accustomed and thereby create anxiety, terror and violence. There are many contradictions between Poppers advocacy of boldness, novelty and revolution in intellectual but not in social life: I think they might be explained more with reference to his theory of human nature than to his epistemology, even if he justifies the distinction in epistemological terms, it becomes clear that objective knowledge is preferable because of the constraints it exercises over subjective fears and impulses. This account of Poppers conception of human nature demonstrates his concern for the practical impact of ideas upon the social life of human beings, here we may notice a conservative tone in his political thought. Epistemology and History Poppers social and political thought includes a more general, speculative philosophy of history which indicates the character of historical progress. For the author, ideas are the main influences upon whether or not human progress is maintained: all social changes and conflicts, wars and revolutions can be seen as the result of conflict between opposing ideas and ideologies. Even with these conclusions, he shares with the historicists, whom he so vehemently attacks, a belief that there exists a direction to human history given by the growth of knowledge. He claims that the growth of knowledge, and thus the history of science, is the heart of all history. The social dilemmas produced by the most crucial episodes in the evolutionary history still remain; for the author these are best exemplified in the evolution of the different social arrangements that have arisen from the exercise of different human facilities. So the open and the close societies represent ideal types of two differen t stages of social and cultural evolution. According to the author where the lower biological needs are dominant, the social structure has the character of a closed society in which all social life is guided by myths and rigid taboos. A kind of magical attitude prevails, in the closed society there is no scope for self doubt and personal moral responsibility; changes in these kind of societies come about more by the introduction of new magical taboos than by ration attempts to improve social conditions. Popper affirms that the breakdown of the closed society began in Greece around 600 B.C., when new intellectual values, methods and ideas of acquiring knowledge arose together with an original style of politics. The Ionian School inaugurated a new tradition of critical thought: its innovation was to question and discuss dogmas and traditions instead of merely accepting them. Within this historical and philosophical transition, according to Popper, we can trace the emergence of a scien tific method. The ideas of criticism and democratic practice allowed human beings to commence their entrance into the open society where they could become aware of the importance of personal decisions and individual moral responsibility. Where biological and physical bonds became weaker more abstract relations, like exchange and cooperation, linked together people and groups. Democracy and the Open Society One of Poppers most striking contributions to contemporary political thought maybe found in his conception of democracy and of what he defines as open society. The idea of the open society operates both as a minimalist ideal to be sought after and as a celebration of the achievement of modern rationality and liberal democracy. Much of its appeals lies in its apparent capacity to limit the impact of our inevitable errors and to contain potentially harmful social tendencies. The open society, which is basically identified by the author as his idea of democracy, aims to promote criticism and diversity without succumbing either to violence or irreconcilable social division. This adventure in a creative and critical thougth produces conflict, but such problems are resolved by peaceful means; the values of freedom of thought and speech, toleration and individualism operate as both a motivation for, and a constraint upon, individual behavior. Those more substantial differences are to be channelled into the democratic process whereby governments can be replaced by free and regular elections. Popper recognizes the presence of certain dangers in the historical evolution of the open society: he suggests that it could become an abstract society in which social relations might become too rational but, although Popper acknowledges that modern industrial societies exhibit many such features, he denies that the process of abstraction or rationalization will actually complete itself. According to the philosopher there will always be emotional needs which human beings can not satisfy in an abstract society; in this view we see the distinction made between the private and the public sphere. The familiar function of the private sphere provides emotional and biological regeneration for authentic life in the public sphere; though Poppers neglect of the problems of unequal power and authority within family and personal life places him clearly in the mainstream of patriarchal political thought. Even though he knows, and admits, that such democracies fall short of his ideal, he is quite optimistic about their potential. Anyway we must recognize that the transition to the open society remains incomplete and its achievements are always and constantly under threat. On the one hand, biological needs, old traditions but especially the difficulties of living with rationality and personal responsibility all combine to challenge the new society; the passions of our lower nature are always liable to rise up and overthrow the controls instituted by self critical scientific rationality. On the other hand the open society may be inherently self-destructive because critical thought continually erodes those older closed traditions that sustain social institutions. Democracy performs a vital function for both politics and epistemology. I tprovides a peaceful means for reform and change pf government, while ensuring the freedom of thought and speech necessary for intellectual progress. This process encourages a pluralism of ideas and groups, it is the necessary precondition for the working out of political meaningn and aims, and is vital for the processes of critical through and the goal of emancipation through knowledge. Poppers theory of democracy typically grows out of his criticism of other approaches to government, initially Platos than Marxs. Our philosopher denies that the guiding principles of politics should be determined by answers given to the question Who should rule?, instead we should ask How can we so organize political institutions that bad and incompetent rulers can be prevents from doing too much damage? which is followed by an other essential question How can we get rid of those rulers without bloodshed and violence?. In responses, Popper argues that democracy should be founded upon a theory of check and balances: basically we are assuming that even the best rulers might fail, so this theory relies on institutional means for curbing their power. The major check is provided by periodic elections that enable people to oust their government without using violent means: this shows the difference between democracy and its opposite, tyranny which consists if governments which the ruled can not get rid of except by way of a successful revolution. He denies any true meaning or essence of democracy, but he asserts it doesnt mean the rule of people or even that the majority should rule, if only because this is impossible in any practical way. Democracy relies upon the political methods of general elections and representative government and Popper considers that these are always open to improvement; so in such a system individuals are allowed both to criticize the majoritys decisions and, within the law, to revise them. Actually Popper provides little details on the practical aspects, like the methods of representation, size and nature of electorates, and length of terms of office. He does reject proportional representation because of its origins in dubious theories of sovereignty and also because of its propensity to produce unstable coalition governments; in Poppers view, two party government is preferable if only because it allows for more serious internal self-criticism after elections defeats: his view of democracy is, in this sense, a relatively conventional elaboration of liberal pluralist principles. But on their own these principles may not guarantee the survival of liberal democracy: issues of representation, size, nature of electorates and so on all have a bearing upon weather citizens would consider themselves to be member of a legitimate democracy. A pluralist system of checks and balances may be so restrictive as to prevent a duly elected government and business to manipulate public opinion there may be little pressure at all upon those in office in order to change their policies. Assuming that the mass of people can not govern,Poppers theory of democracy may be reduced to a theory of competing elites; for this reason his procedural arguments lie within the tradition of realist and revisionist democratic theory that gives priority to competitive elites and argues for democracy as a method for choosing governments. But Popper departs from realist democratic theory because he recognizes that control over government is not all there is to creating a democratic state and society; his solution, however, is not to encourage widespread political participation but to require that the state protect democracy in two ways. First, since democracies must always be open to new ideas, protection must be given and assured to minorities, except to those who violate law and especially those who incite others to the violent overthrow of the democracy, so we must exclude just those violent changes that could put the democracy in dangerous. Second, because Popper is concerned to avoid the misuse of political power and economic power, he exhortes democratic states to engage in social and economic reforms; he strongly affirms the need of institutions to be constructed in order to protect the economically weak against the economically strong. So he sees the necessity of some sort of economic interventionism as well as some social reforms, the necessity of reforms are essential ingredients for a democratic order: the democratic system should work step by step in order to safeguard freedom form exploitation. Although such strategies create greater possibilities for increased state power and bureaucracy, these may be diminished by strengthening democratic institutions and by following the principles of piecemeal social engineering. This kind of policy is not as restrictive as it is commonly thought, but it odes rule out the nationalization and socialization of the entire private industry of a country. A separate point in favo r of piecemeal social engineering is thought to be its scientific character. Popper considers it methodologically superior to holisitc and revolutionary programmes, in part because social engineers accept the limitations of their knowledge. By reformulating key questions about democracy, Popper sidesteps some of the more usual difficulties of universalist democratic theory. By requiring state action to remedy certain kinds of social and economic problems, he offers more of a policy substance that the usual realist and proceduralist forms of democratic theory. His goal is to avoid or at least minimize the violent conflict that he sees inevitably arising from arguments over the good society. Whereas we may not be able to agree on abstract universal values, the shape of an ideal society or the ultimate good of people, we can generally reach agreement on concrete social and economic evils such as poverty and disease; Popper doesnt develop any universal values but he doesnt abandoned the m. I think a major advantage of Popper commitment to non-violence, public-criticism and freedom of speech is that allows us to retain a critical perspective upon all kinds of governments. His idea of minimal proceduralism and gradualism, for example, may accommodate democratic aspirations less developed or developing countries without subscribing to wholesale westernization and modernization. Poppers substantive policy proposals reject the radicalism of laissez-faire economics and offer the social benefits of gradualism, stability and security. Their negative utilitarianism encourages governments to ameliorate the worst aspects of individualism and capitalism, and allows a legitimate role for state intervention in society and economy. Popper combines ethical proceduralism with a requirement for state-initiated reform, his theory advances somewhat beyond the usual forms of democratic elitism and revisionism. Poppers social and political thought comprises elements which may be designed as liberal, social democratic and conservative. He deeply respects individual freedom and emphasizes the power of ideas in promoting progress while critical rationalism lies primarily within the mainstream of the liberal tradition. Nevertheless his conception of human nature is a combination of liberal and conservative assumptions, which sets out both an optimistic view of human potential and a largely pessimistic account of human needs. Poppers social vision, however, is a liberal rationalist one: an open society in which the values of freedom, reason, toleration and non-violence prevail; he suggests institutional guidelines for building and maintaining democracy, advocating policies such as piecemeal social engineering, oriented towards protecting individuals form the ravages of the market. But for a liberal philosopher, however, the guiding values of liberty, rationality, toleration and non-violence of t he open society are relatively undeveloped. Poppers conservativism is most evident in his political realism and his uncritical attitude towards contemporary liberal democracies. Underlying his stress upon the need for creative and revolutionary thought there is the fear that this will bring social disorder. Hence, such intellectual processes need to be contained within firm traditions whose overthrow cannot be countenanced except to establish a democracy. I believe we might see his political project as an attempt to provide more suitable tradtions or controls upon human thought and action; but I still find an unavoidable conflict between his liberal rationalist values and his perception of the perverse and intractable nature of individuals even if his ethical individualism and cosmopolitism differentiate him form most conservatives. Popper sees totalitarianism of all stripes as essentially tribal, as a closed society, a rebellion against the strain of civilization. He assaults it by using his philosophy of science (which greatly emphasizes falsification, i.e. the refutation of statements and theories) to criticize the doctrines of those whom Popper takes to be behind modern totalitarianism, namely Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Marx. Brian Magee ably summarizes Poppers reasons for defending the Open Society: Because he regards living as first and foremost a process of problem-solving he wants societies which are conducive to problem-solving. And because problem-solving calls for the bold propounding of trial solutions which are then subjected to criticism and error elimination, he wants forms of society which permit of the untramelled assertion of different proposals, followed by criticism, followed by the genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism. Regardless of any moral considerations he believes that a society organized on such lines will be more effective at solving its problems, and therefore more successful in achieving the aims of its members, than if it were organized on other lines. Such a society is what Popper takes to be social democracy, entailing the prob lem-solving of piecemeal social engineering. This social democracy may indeed have once inspired the intellectual elite of the West, seeking (as many were) alternatives to fascism and communism, but today it inspires hardly anyone. And for good reason, for what else is democratic social reconstruction but that postwar system of fine-tuning the economy, the reign of countless redistributive social programs designed by politicians and social scientists to meet those alleged social needs that a host of interest groups are pressing upon the political systems of the West as non-negotiable demands? Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Poppers advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess. Intervention has been piled upon intervention; regulations have been continually modified in unpredictable ways (Popper advocates such revisions in the light of experience); taxation has increased dras tically to finance social welfare programs (as has inflation, with its resulting economic fluctuations); and the unhampered market economy, so forcefully defended by Poppers close friend F. A. Hayek, has been reformed out of existence. Interventionism, piecemeal or not, has worked its inevitable way, and has led to precisely those consequences that Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and others had predicted: economic stagnation and political conflict. Democratic institutions themselves are threatened by those whose vested interests are entwined with the State apparatus. Dime store tinkering, even with freedom of criticism and revision, is leading to the closed society that Popper so fears. There is indeed nothing new in this warning; it is the theme of both Ludwig von Mises Socialism and F. A. Hayeks The Road to Serfdom. In short, the Open Society is not enough. If the Open Society is equivalent to a society in which everything and anything is open to democratic revision except the basic institutions that make democratic revision possible then Popper is only focusing on one need of human beings (that a dubious collective need), not the broader need for liberty that is implied in the outline of his argument as stated by Magee. Popper makes a great deal of noise about individualism, but nevertheless only applies the structure of that argument to collective processes of hypothesis, testing (action) and revision in the light of experience; the argument would apply to individuals as well, since they are the sole constituents of society. By focusing on this collective democratic character of the Open Society, Popper ignores the more basic need for individual liberty in art, business, science, and all other areas as well.The arguments for democracy that Popper presents, then, are in principle identical to arguments for individual liberty. It is the principle of non-aggression, the first principle of liberty, that properly limits the domain of democracy. If Poppers arguments for democracy (as opposed to his advocacy of democracy itself) are valid, then it is not the rigidity of a technology of social engineering that we should seek, but an unhampered market economy, where people can constantly act on their own judgment and can continually revise their plans in accordance with the new information brought by change. This brings us not to social democracy, but to the doctrine of libertarianism. Far more important than the principle of democracy, then, even by Poppers own arguments, is the principle of individual liberty. Liberty is paramount, democracy at best secondary: democracy is important only insofar as it is the servant of and means to the end of liberty. Thus, in following the logical implications of Poppers views (which are not, after all, that original), we move from the open society to the Free Society, and find ourselves agreeing with Michael Polanyis claim, contra Popper, that the Free Society is not an Open Society, but a society committed to a very definite set of rules. In Poppers Open Society, the principle of democracy is regarded as fixed, as not being open to revision. In the Free Society, it is the far more fundamental principle of individual liberty and non-aggression that is not open to revision (though its implications may be refined with growing knowledge). Poppers reasoning is, by and large, correct, but it is individuals who must solve problems to survive, not societies, and therefore individuals who must be free to think and act to achieve values and to revise mistaken plans and impressions in the light of experience or more critical thought. Why is it important to consider The Open Society and Its Enemies after all these years? Very simply, because these are the times when totalitarianism is on the rise, and Western democracies are in the midst of crises that are threatening the stability of their basic institutions, and perhaps even their very survival. In this battle against totalitarianism todays right-wing social democrats the neo-conservatives such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell are once again raising the banner of social democracy against tyranny. But this is pointless, for such democracy combined with social engineering and statist reforms is inherently unstable and is unjust as well. No mere democratic machinery, no mere procedure, is enough to oppose fascism or communism, not in a world of those real social dynamics that are set in motion by interventionism. Only liberty can fully oppose closed societies, and only if liberty is seen as something that is not to be bargained away or a bandoned through as series of insignificant piecemeal reforms. Liberty must be regarded as the ultimate political end, foremost among those political values held dear by reasonable men and women, the highest and most noble political form possible to human beings. I do not wish to leave the impression that The Open Society is worthless. It is indeed a heuristic work, tossing off suggestive arguments and insights on nearly every page, and the criticisms of Plato, Hegel and Marx are always pregnant ones. Popper is a great and forceful advocate of reason, science and progess, and his passionate idealism shines forth continually from the pages of this work. But so too does nearly every moth-eaten philosophical cliche around, e.g., the attack on certainty, the fact/value dichotomy, and the Humean assault on induction. Moreover, Popper is unnerving in his treatment of capitalism. Opponents of the Open Society who see it as being too coercive are slighted by Poppers astonishing smears of laissez faire, his continual granting of Marxist historical points against capitalism, and his cheerful parading before us of those democratic reforms that have all but obliterated the unhampered free market economy. Social democracy, the Open Society, has been tried and found wanting. The question that faces us now is simply whether those lovers of experiment and flexibility are experimental and flexible enough to advocate that liberty be given a chance. If it is not given that chance, there may be no tu rning back, and we may yet arrive in an era when we shall look back at the totalitarianism of the 1930s as a veritable golden age. But in one sense, at least, Popper is right: the future is ours to shape. Liberty has never been fully tried. It is the task of readers of this journal to remedy that unfortunate situation; if we do not, no one else will.

Alternative Energy

The future of humanity Is at stake due to the high consumption of energy sources that are used to get us through our everyday lives! Our most common methods of generating energy are polluting our beloved planet Earth and tearing up the ozone layer. Also, many of these methods we are currently abusing to generate energy are non-renewable. That's means we could run out any day now. This is a formula for complete disaster, but don't be scared. Like most things we can fix this situation we have put ourselves into with alternative energy sources. Sorry Captain Planet it looks like you will be sitting this one out.There are many different forms of clean and renewable alternative energy. Fortunately it look likes we may be headed down the right path to saving humanity. Some of these forms of alternative energy that can definitely help solve the problem are: wind energy; hydrogen; solar power; wave energy. Currently wind power only provides about 0. 15 percent of the worlds electricity but I t has become one of the fastest growing forms of clean, alternative energy. Gigantic windmills, also known as wind turbines are sprouting up all across the land and seas of the world.These towers can be a massive one hundred meters tall. One f these towers alone has the ability to produce 1,650 kilowatts of power. That Is enough electricity to adequately power roughly 350 European homes. Since 1992, more commercial wind farms have been installed in more countries than ever before. There are now 40,000 turbines in 40 countries, and the world's wind energy capacity is growing at nearly 27 per cent annually. In 1998, it topped 10,000 megawatts (MM), about the total energy producing capacity of a country like Denmark.The 1999 figures are not all in, but we know that 1998 was a boom year for the wind power Industry. Equipment sales topped $2 billion and there ere 35,000 Jobs In the sector worldwide. Growth Is expected to continue at about 25 per cent a year. (Madsen, Pa. 6) In Europe the re are plans to have forty thousand megawatts of wind power Installed by the end of 2010. Wind is one of the best sources sources of alternative energy due to the fact it is completely environmentally friendly and we will never run out of wind. Denmark, the wind energy pioneer, covers 10 per cent of its electricity consumption from wind power, delivered from an installed capacity of some 1,700 MM(Madsen, Pa. 8). † Not far behind are also Germany and Spain due to the terrain and steady flow of mind. While everything is working out great for wind power over in Europe things aren't going quite as well here in the U. S. A, unfortunately. Currently wind power only provides about 0. 1 percent of the continents electricity needs. This is due in large part to a congressional argument every couple of years about a tax break to help boost the wind power Industry. Wind turbines produce electricity in California for between 4. 5 cents and 4. 8 cents per K-H, roughly the same as the cost o f power from a coal-fired plant. Emory Loves of the Rocky Mountain Institute In Colorado lives that a new generation of sugarless wind turbines will improve efficiency and the U. S. A. Is not the only area slacking in the wind power industry. Asia, South America and Africa are even farther behind, in regards to wind power, than the U. S. A. Experts believe that twenty percent of the entire worlds energy needs could be supplied by wind power.There is enough wind to provide twice the expected global electricity demand for 2020. Even if only 10 percent of energy needs were met by wind power, the world would be spared about 10 billion tons of carbon emissions (out of a total of 60-70 billion tons). To achieve this goal, 120 times more wind capacity would have to be installed than there is would be very high, but operation and marginal. (Madsen, Pa. 12) today. The initial investment required maintenance costs would be As with every industry, the technology of wind turbines has improved g reatly over the years.The manufacturers have been building bigger and better turbines and as a result of this the price of wind power has been dropping by about twenty percent since 1999. This makes wind power not only a great environmental choice but also a great economical choice. In the long run wind power is much cheaper than rotational ways of generating energy like coal power plants. Once the turbines are installed they require very little maintenance and fuel does not need to be purchased or gathered to allow them to create the energy we need. As far back as Jules Verne, visionaries have predicted that society will someday be utterly transformed by energy based on hydrogen. â€Å"(Strip, Len. 1) We have more hydrogen in the universe than any other element. Hydrogen is extremely clean and produces mostly Just water vapor when it is burned. Fuel cells power by hydrogen will be able to solve many energy problems that we currently face. The technology is already in place and rea dy right now to allow to hydrogen to take over as the main resource for generating energy.It may take a while to be able to convert most everything we depend tog e through our daily lives, but for a cleaner more efficient future it is definitely the right path to take. The first step down the hydrogen path would be to outfit fuel stations for hydrogen powered vehicles, which there are a few that were recently put out on the market. Manufacturers being able to mass produce the hydrogen fuel cells will also be a big boost as it would greatly decrease the cost for the mass market. Around the industrialized world, the seeds of oil displacement are already visible.Next year, for instance, three major energy companies in Scandinavia plan to build a pilot plant to make hydrogen from wind power. While it's only a start, the implications are huge: Denmark, the world wind-power leader, already gets nearly 15% of its electricity from the wind. Use that electricity to produce hydrogen, and the Danes would have the energy equivalent of the Euro: an energy currency that can be efficiently swapped for heat or locomotion, or turned back into electricity. And while electricity is hard to store n large quantities, hydrogen is easy.The Scandinavians plan to use it in fuel- cell that equipped buildings and vehicles–such as the hydrogen-powered buses Demolisher's expects to roll out in Europe next year. (Strip, Pa. 8) Another great thing about hydrogen power is that it can be used to drive other produce hydrogen. That benefits everyone in two ways. First, producing hydrogen while harnessing the power of the wind or the sun does not produce and harmful emissions that can damage the ozone layer. Secondly, electricity is hard to store but hydrogen is very easy.Today, 20 percent of all units sold to heat pools are solar. The potential value of the technology is shown in Israel, where solar hot water heaters displace 6 percent of the country's total electricity consumption. (Ham mer, Pa. 9) Not only is solar energy heir savings. It is estimated that by 2020 there will be over 1 50,000 Americans employed in the photovoltaic industry. (Hammer, Pa. 9) â€Å"Wave energy has been hailed as the most promising renewable source for maritime countries. It does no environmental damage and is inexhaustible?the waves go on for ever.It is invariably popular with the public, which has a sentimental love of the sea. â€Å"(Ross, Pa. 1) Getting energy from the wave of the ocean is probably one of the oldest and best ideas for alternative energy. The first patent for wave energy was filed by a father and son during the time of the French Revolution. Ross, Pa. 2) Unfortunately, there was was little progress in converting this great resource into usable energy until the last quarter century due to little knowledge of what a wave really is and how it worked(Ross, Pa. 3).Harnessing the massive of power of waves to generate energy has been a daunting task so far because of the harsh conditions the equipment must be able to endure. There has been success though. Yogis Massed, from Japan, invented the oscillating water column (OCW)? effectively a chimney which stands on the seabed and admits the waves through its base. As they rise and fall in the open sea outside, the n opening near to height of the column of water inside rises and falls too. As the water level rises, air is forced up and out through a turbine which spins and drives the generator.As it falls again, air is sucked back in from the atmosphere to fill the resulting vacuum and once again the turbo-generator is activated. Professor Alan Wells of Queen's University, Belfast, greatly improved the efficiency of the invention by devising a turbine which spins in the same direction regardless of whether the air is being pushed out or sucked back into the chimney. (Ross, Pa. 6-7) This is Just one of the many ways of of generating power room waves that is currently in use or under development by resea rchers around the world.One of the more interesting methods that is currently under going testing and development is the Salver's Duck, invented by Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University. His invention consists of cones called ducks that are built around a spine that is connected to a central generator. As the ducks bob up and down while they are they on the waves they drive the generator(Ross, Pa. 9). The biggest hurdle that wave power faces now is not the lack of knowledge to put the technology into use but the lack of financial backing. Like most new developing cosmologies it is very expensive to get going at first because the fact that it is new.Wave power however is a great investment because it has the potential to produce incredible amounts of electricity without harming the environment. The well being of our planet should come first. It's pretty hard to argue against the fact that something needs to be done help the planet we live on get back to a healthy state. Th e way we produce energy to get through or daily lives, not Just in America but the whole world, needs a face lift to rival that of Joan Rivers. Yes, it is true that face lifts are are not cheap and may not fix al the problems we currently have with how we create energy.But, everyone knows that something needs to be done. There is a chance that many of these ideas for alternative energy may end being in the rough that could turn out to be the next Brett Fare of the alternative energy industry. We need to take a chance on some of these unproven technologies for the future of the human race and our planet Earth. Not only will these new sources of energy help the planet but the economy as well. Thousands of new and exciting Jobs will be created. In conclusion, alternative energy sources can be the true savior of the human race. Alternative Energy Continuously coughing while driving down the road, Maggie, a seventy-year-old woman presently living in Bend, Oregon makes her way towards the physician. Twice a month she has to drive just three blocks down the street to the doctor's office to pick up her medication. Maggie has to use the medication to ease her breathing problems caused by the devastating pollution in the big city. Only fifty years ago, Bend was a beautiful, small city with clear skies and thousands of lush, green trees. In the winter, hundreds of tourists would flock to the town for winter sports at Mount Bachelor. Now, Bend is a terribly polluted mass of buildings, streets, and people. Instead of tourists visiting in the winter for skiing and snowboarding, they come for the warm temperatures and a fresh tan. Over the years, the pollution build up from nuclear power plants and the carbon dioxide from automobiles caused the city to have hideous smog problems. The constant exhaust protruding from the tail pipes of millions of cars across the globe caused the year-round temperatures to shoot up unstoppably. If the human race does not change the current lifestyle, this sad tale could one day be a reality. To prevent this from happening alternative energy sources should be used more frequently throughout the world. Alternative energy sources are underutilized resources that need to be embraced and used before too much harm is done to the earth, and it is too late to reverse the effects. Although many people think that it is too costly to convert to an alternative energy source, such as solar power, the money that is spent to switch from one source to another is eventually regained due to lower electrical bills. A couple living in Pennsylvania has a solar photovoltaic system mounted on their roof, which generates the power needed to live. The generator then sends any extra power back to a main electrical grid causing the electric meter to spin backward, thus saving the couple hundreds of dollars. In one year, the couple generated almost five hundred more kilowatt-hours of electrical power than they needed. Having the extra electricity meant virtually no electrical bills for the entire year; the two only had to pay sixty-one dollars of customer-service fees in 2001, rather than 560 dollars of electrical bills in 1993 (Heavens). If one couple's electric bill were that high in 1993, imagine how much higher it would be now. With solar power as a main source of energy, hundreds of dollars a year can be saved on electricity, eventually saving vast amounts of money for users. Some people may agree that using an alternative energy source, such as solar power, will save money, but do not want to convert because forms of alternative energy are not very widely and readily available. While it is true that there are not large amounts of various forms of alternative energy available, it is also true that more are defiantly needed. Recent blackouts have shown that there are too many people and not enough energy. According to a national trade group for utilities, the Edison Electric Institute, â€Å"[t]housands of small neighborhood blackouts occur each year in the USA, lasting from a few seconds to a few hours† (Iwata 3b). Along with those small blackouts, there were also 324 large and midsize blackouts and more than a dozen super-blackouts from 1984 to 2000. All of these blackouts are still occurring, even though the North American grid is regarded as the most advanced in the world (Iwata 3b). If there could be more energy available, then there would not be as many blackouts across the nation and people would not have to deal with going without power. While many alternative energy sources can help reduce blackouts, they can also help people maintain a healthier lifestyle by cutting down on smog problems. While driving in a car, more fuel-efficient driving habits can help a great deal in reducing pollution and smog in the city. For every one-liter of fuel that is saved, almost two and a half kilograms of carbon dioxide are kept from entering the atmosphere. Keeping the carbon dioxide from entering the air prevents smog problems, and with less smog problems numerous health problems can be reduced in the population. Many people suffer from asthma and respiratory illnesses because of so many automobiles across the globe, and, 5,000 people in Canada alone die a year from smog in the city (â€Å"Breathe† 16). If Canada has 5,000 deaths per year from smog, then thousands more people die across the world just from the pollution-causing exhaust fumes trailing out of vehicles around the planet. If more people use alternative fuel cars or hybrid electric cars, hundreds of people can be kept healthier because of less pollution. Along with being healthier for people, alternative energy sources help save the ozone layer, preventing more damage to the earth from occurring. According to estimates, the overall global temperature has increased five to nine degrees Fahrenheit since the last ice age (Stevens 60). This temperature fluctuation does not seem like a big deal, but with another one to six-degree raise in temperature expected by the year 2100 (Stevens 59), ocean levels could raise destroying wildlife habitats, ocean ecosystems, and seaside cities. Also, tropical storms could become more severe, destroying any lasting cities along the coastal regions of the earth (Stevens 60). When using alternative energy sources, people can help to save the ozone layer from too much damage, helping the entire planet. Not only do alternative energy sources help to save the ozone layer, but they also help to prevent nuclear wastes from harming the earth. Nuclear power plants use radioactive materials to create energy, and after they are done with the materials, they are buried in the ground. The radioactive material that is buried in the ground, depending on the type, can cause death to many organisms by slowing killing all the cells due to radiation. For the organisms that do not die, they can either get cancer, or some sort of mutation in their reproductive cells causing damage to future generations (Weber 22). Some of the wastes from nuclear power plants can be harmful for three to five hundred years and other can be up in the millions (Weber 26). If the waste is harmful for hundreds or even millions of years, than we not only have to worry about health risks for current generations, but also the future generations across the globe. For the future generations, if the waste is harmful for so many years, the less populated areas that are now used for disposing of these wastes may one day be extremely populous regions around the country. When using nuclear power there are large amounts of harmful wastes to worry about, but with an alternative energy source, there are no harmful wastes that put risks to people's health and environmental health. There are many different forms of alternative energy sources, all of which need to be more widely embraced and applied to current methods, otherwise too much irreversible damage could be done to the earth. The environment and the health of the human population both need protection from pollution, otherwise cities which are currently relatively small and still have clear skies and green trees, may one day end up with little amounts of trees, overgrown populations and terrible pollution problems. The global climate will rise and land destroyed by nuclear wastes could still be harmful if humans have too much contact with the area. If the human race does not discover better, less destructive ways of creating energy, then who knows what the world may one day look like?

William Somerset Maugham’s ‘the Lotus Eater’

Q: Sketch the character of Thomas Wilson. Is the name ‘lotos-eater’ appropriate to him? Ans. William Somerset Maugham’s compelling short story ‘The Lotus Eater’ paints his curious meeting with Thomas Wilson, the pivotal character of the story. A retired English bank manager, Wilson, who made the Italian island Capri his own abode, had a good deal of rumour going about him. No believer of all the tittle-tattle that went about him on the island and elsewhere, the author met him personally to discover his real character. When the author met him for the first time, Wilson, a middle-aged fellow, had already spent fifteen years on the island. As Wilson himself revealed to the author, he fell in love with Capri at first sight. Capri was an island of superb sights and sounds so much so that Wilson would enjoy them heartily until the last day of his life. After his retirement, he lived on an annuity that was to last for only twenty-five years, and he wished to live these years to his heart’s content. He was a man who would live in the present caring little about the future. To Wilson, he had justifiable reason to live after his own heart, since he had none on earth to worry about. He loved nature, music and books, which alone could feed the thoughts of a lonely man like him. He preferred leisure to work, for he believed that people worked only to obtain leisure. Small wonder, after the expiry of his annuity, Wilson fell on worst days and lost the will-power to carry his life any further. With no hopes to live for, Wilson once made an attempt to commit suicide. Though he survived the mortal attempt, he was no longer in his right mind. Then one fateful morning, he was found lying on the mountainside with his eyes closed for ever. The author recalled Wilson saying that he had come to the island on a moonlit night. Hence, he assumed that Wilson had breathed his last while feasting his eyes on a breath-taking sight in the moonlight. It is noteworthy that the title of the story ‘The Lotus Eater’ is remarkably appropriate to the character of Wilson. The lotus eaters in Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ were the mariners of Ulysses who forgot their friends and homes after consuming the ‘lotos’ plant on Lotus-land. Having consumed the plant, the mariners broke into a memorable chorus. The chorus worded the anguish that came with toil, as also the joy that they had in that blissful life of leisure and inaction.

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1321 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/08/08 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: A Christmas Carol Essay Did you like this example? Bah Humbug! Yes you got it I am talking about the one and only Ebenezer Scrooge. Which means that this book report must be about the revolutionary story The Christmas Carol. Well you are right my fine fellow very right you are. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens" essay for you Create order We have all heard of Ebenezer Scrooge before. Grumpy old man who has lost all of his christmas spirit. And cares about nothing and none else then his money. Ah yes I know I know does not sound very merry or jolly right? Well thats just it! How does this story lead up to the Christmas cheer we all expect and desire for that my fine fellow you will just have to keep your ears and eyes open and continue reading! Oh goodie you have continued on this wondrous adventure with me! What better way to start off than with the very first chapter. The book starts off with a melancholy begging that is not expected from a story that has Christmas in the title. I am talking about death. The title of Stave 1 is â€Å"Marley’s Dead†. The first sentence was â€Å"Marley is dead: to begin with† â€Å" There no doubt whatever about that† To describe Marley and his death Scrooge used the very popular term â€Å"Old Marley was as dead as a doornail†. Little did poor old Scrooge know that he was gone in the site of the living people. But that really he was roaming around the earth serving all his so called sins that he did while still in life but not being able to go back and fix them. And very little did he know that on that very night he would be paid a visit by Marley’s spirit in itself. Marley’s intention was on the one night he had to be seen by those living once again was to warn Scrooge. About how life after death has been for him on the path that Scrooge himself is on. And last but definitely not least telling Scrooge he still has time to change and escape the future that he was not able to. He also comes to warn him about the 3 Spirits that would come to pay him a visit. Which were the ghost of Christmas past,present, and future. During Stave 1 the ghost of Christmas past played Scrooge a visit. He took Scrooge back to christmas as a child. And one of the most important events took him back to when his sister came to get him from school. In which he realized how bad of an uncle he had been to his nephew Fred. In stave two, Scrooge has already started to want to change his actions. He just has not done so yet. In stave 2 Scrooge is once again visited this time by the ghost of christmas present. The ghost would come to revile many thing of the christmas just a few days away. He was reviled to himself as always melancholy, anti social, and lonely. He also got to experience and see a part of the Cratchit Family he yet to know about. For example he had children. And not just one many. Then he got to meet the youngest of the Cratchits. Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim was the youngest in the family. And had a very serious illness. And was soon expected to die. He also got to see how his nephew’s Fred party would be without him. Once again he was starting to repeal from his prior actions. He got to once again see his family and how they would comment over â€Å"poor old Scrooge†. He also saw the charity worker he had formally rejected and what he was doing to help the people. He also got a cha nce to see the poor people he had earlier on wished death upon (â€Å" then they should die and decrease the surplus population†) and how they were trying to be happy with the little that they had. â€Å" But frankly hey rather die than live there† â€Å" We havent got much but with this it should do.† This shows how all people were just trying to make the best of what they had. And rappelling Scrooge’s actions therefore making him disappointed in himself and they had no idea about it what they were doing and how they were helping Scrooge in his change. In stave three the ghost of Christmas present continue his mission. Which is to show Scrooge what Christmas will be like in a couple of days. And to make him feel guilty. He has laid eyes upon all the poor folk and ask the ghost if they will please be spared. And the ghost hit him back with a taste of his own medicine using what Scrooge himself had said in stave one. Which was â€Å" then they should die and decrease the surplus population†. Those words hit Scrooge very strongly and changed his perspective of being and really made him feel bad about his prior statement. He now had wanted to apologize to all those poor folk who had been very insulted by his prior sayings he no longer knew what to do but hoped that when he once again opened his eyes and wake that he would be able to make up for all his wrong doings. In stave 4 we have started to come to and end. Or starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Scrooge awakens once more. And for the last time wakes up to another ghost awaiting him. In this case it was the ghost of Christmas yet to come. The ghost was not really a man of words as the other 2 had certainly been. He just did what was asked of him. Cut to the point and did not mingle whatsoever. He started off by showing Scrooge a dead body that resembles with extreme detail his bedroom and bed. Although he had not wanted to believe the possibilities of that dead body being him. Then the ghost tried to give poor Scrooge another hint with a couple of men standing outside a big what sounded to be office like building saying â€Å" well this funeral ought to be small for which I cant see anyone who would like to attend it†. He still did not want to catch on to the situation. The hint that really gave it away was his old maid stealing all his bed sheets, pillows, curtains et c. He really did not want to face the final straw that would make sure of it being him the body that now lay in the ground motionless. But cold hearted as always. He was brought his most unwanted place his tombstone! Which had said â€Å" Ebenezer Scrooge, Birth date February 7th, Death date December 25†! â€Å" NO NO this is not possible† he pleaded. He laid on his knees asking the ghost for mercy the ghost said nothing. In stave 5 we draw the final slab of the story. Instantly he woke up in happiness and woke up determined to be a better Scrooge. He started doing so by buying the Cratchits a turkey. He donated a lot to Charity. Helped out the poor. And most importantly. Helped save Tiny Tim . To who in Mr.Dickens words â€Å" Became like a second father.† To wrap everything up, I will give my general opinion over the book, ratings and recommendations. My personal opinion is that is turned out to be very nice book with a fantastic moral. And inspiring ways of writing. My Rating for this book grade wise is 7th grade and up. So the students will really be able to understand the message the story is trying to bring to its fellow readers. For age 12+ because once again the students will understand the moral much clearer. Would I recommend this book of course! I would do so because I think in can teach children maral, begins, love, and most of all hope.