"I can't get no..."

"When I'm ridin' round the world

and I'm doin this and I'm signin' that....

I can't get no satisfaction."

The Rolling Stones

I love mountains, and have from an early age. For my seventh birthday, I asked my parents to take me to climb Mt. Marcy, the tallest peak in New York. I loved it. When we moved closer to the Adirondacks when I was a teen, I plotted how to climb the 46 "High Peaks." Too young to drive, this often involved convincing at least one of my parents to go climbing. Some days, we would "knock off" a single peak, other times we would get on a ridge trail, and "bag" several peaks.

To me, it was all about the destination. Satisfaction lay in achieving the goal. I remember one summer day at the top of Algonquin Peak, my mother saying "Paul, let's just sit and enjoy the view." As I suspected throughout my youth, she was a crazy woman. We had two more peaks to climb that day. Summits were for eating your sandwich, cramming in a small box of Sun-maid raisins and a square of Hershey's bar, and moving on down the trail to whatever came next. "Sit and enjoy?"

Now, 40 years later, I realize that for my parents it was not about the destination, and all about the satisfaction of hiking through the woods with their excited son. For my Mom, it was much more about watching the cloud shadows race across the cliff streaked nearby peaks, seeing how far she could see, and chatting with other hikers. For my Dad it was identifying birds by their songs, making a walking stick with his jack knife, or speculating on whether there might be "good-sized trout" in an unmarked clump of beaver ponds that he'd spotted from the ridge.

"Life is a journey, not a destination." Wise words attributed to Emerson (as well as Aerosmith), but ones I question still. Doesn't the destination direct and shape the journey? Isn't the destination enriched by the journey? And, anyway, isn't life composed of many journeys and destinations? Where one's summits are like individual notes in a piece of music, sometimes melodic, sometimes not?

For me, life is about both journey and destination, and feels best when that elusive balance between them is, even momentarily, achieved. That, for me, is satisfaction, flow and joy. It is about getting to the summit, and enjoying it. And then starting out towards the next one.

_______________

NOTE: I am known in my family for remembering all of the good, and none of the bad, on many of our trips. It is possible that I have, at times, encountered bugs, mud, injuries, unfriendly animals and locales, and freeze dried eggs with worms in them. At times, I may have packed too little food figuring I would catch enough fish. And, years later, one of my son's friends refers to a backcountry ski tour as "The Trail of Tears." So my parents may have a different recollection of some of these trips during my Wonder Years.

NOTE #2: Update. My parents do recollect that I was a tad difficult. I was pleased they used the past tense.

Who decides?

"We are always paid for our suspicion by finding what we suspect."

Henry David Thoreau

Lillian BeVier, one of the most popular profs at UVa Law, used this basic question to teach constitutional law. Her point was that societies face many decisions, and it is important to decide which institutions will make them. And to have "checks and balances" in the system.

Today, we face big challenges that go beyond national boundaries. I was reminded of Prof. BeVier this morning when I read this article: "Tweaking the climate to save it: Who decides?"

The theme of the article is that political institutions are at a logjam on actions which might significantly reduce/mitigate green house gasses (Copenhagen), so it might be prudent to have a "Plan B" for involving adaptation and geo-engineering.

Atmospheric scientists might learn from the experience of their biotechnology colleagues. Political decisions get made by people who don't understand the science, and (this can be frustrating) on grounds that have little to do with science (see Stem Cells). But bringing in experts from other fields, such as ethics, political science, economics- and yes, law- will result in a broader conversation and a better chance for a workable framework to emerge.

Just as there are frameworks for approvals before injecting animals or people with chemicals... we will need similar frameworks before experimenting with injecting the atmosphere with chemical "cures." So, who decides what the framework is, and how it will be implemented?

The Royal Society tapped academic experts in their 2009 report "Geoengineering the Climate" which included a chapter on governance, including short sections on ethics and international frameworks. These provide an overview of the issues, but little traction on our question.*

From the "Tweaking" article, it appears that these fields were represented at the tranquil countryside estate of Chicheley. While I could not find the list of attendees at this meeting (transparency?) the journalist reported that attendees came from an invitation list** of "blue-ribbon cross section of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, environmentalists, international lawyers, psychologists, [and] policy makers" from six continents. No mention of ethicists, economists or engineers.

It seems that the attendees had a hard time wrapping their heads around this being a credible "Plan B." One participant stated "as soon as you start to do this research, you say its OK to think about things you shouldn't be thinking about." Really? I better go read up again on the scientific method. But it concerns me that there are things we "shouldn't be thinking about." Not the best approach for someone fancying themselves a "decider," is it?

So, back to the title. Who decides? At this point, the scientists are taking the lead on what seems to be more of a policy question. I hope that the process will be open minded, transparent and accepting of diverse points of view. And that they remember that while science provides an important perspective on the topic, others will be needed if there really is going to be a Plan B.

_____________

*One of my favorites: "A sufficiently high carbon price, credits for sequestration and financial support for reduced radiative forcing would be necessary to stimulate greater entrepreneurial activity in developing geoengineering technology. It is not yet clear if this would be desirable." (p 44)

**the article notes that the invitations were put together by the Royal Society and the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF is a well known environmental organization, and I respect much of their work. But it is far from unbiased when it comes to geoengineering. While I might agree with their view on geoengineering, I am concerned that they were doing the invitation list. The scientific community just doesn't seem to get it that these approaches reinforce the perception of bias, and undermine the credibility of meetings like this one. I guess it might have disturbed the countryside tranquility to invite a Nathan Myhrvold, Bjorn Lomborg or Steven Levitt to the event.

Educational Arsonists?

Wanted to make sure my bleeps were checking in on the following conversation on the needs for technical disciplines vs. liberal arts as they impact innovation and job creation: Engineering vs. Liberal Arts- Who's right Bill or Steve? and What Bill Gates Could Learn from Chris Rock

For those who like the sound of "educational arsonist" but aren't sure what I am talking about, click here.

I like the debate... a few observations (as an educational arsonist):

1) I think that "both" is best, but unusual in one person, and that is why entrepreneurship is such a great team sport.

2) It would be nice to recognize that "college/degree" is an early chapter in an evolving narrative, not the conclusion. Lots can happen post-university, thankfully. We are not bound by the decisions we make as 17 year olds.**

3) Perhaps some data-cruncher will establish the correlation between job creation and the degrees that a society's educational institutions grant. Until then, I am skeptical of any claim that granting more of any type of degree will create more jobs. That doesn't mean politicians won't still claim a tight relationship, but I think they confuse jobs with votes sometimes. How about letting go of the value judgements of which degrees are better?

4) Let's remember that a lot of education happens outside of classrooms and schools. Which is fine. Probably a better evolutionary swamp for disruptive innovation. Maybe "publish or perish" will become "adapt or perish" or maybe not. Universities are certainly one of society's longer lived institutions, and certainly not one of it's bigger sources of disruptive innovation.***

______________________________

*Thanks Nathaneal, for sharing the link with me on facebook earlier today.

**Disclosure: I settled on Political Science over Biology after conferring with my advisor junior year and checking my finances. I would graduate sooner and I thought I had hit the point of diminishing returns for college.

***For fun, substitute "reactive" for "innovative" in speeches on the topic of university innovation and entrepreneurship.