I've just finished Sydney Giffard's 'Japan Among the Powers 1890-1990'. The book offers an excellent overview of the political, social, and economic changes that took place in Japan in the century covered. It's main focus is on politics and governance, and thanks to Giffard's background as an active diplomat who has spent years in Japan, the book offers especially insightful and in-depth descriptions of the considerations informing key policies and decisions that have shaped many of the big decisions of Japan's, and Asia's, past.
Giffard is also an excellent writer: the book offers flowing prose, precise and evocative language. It has an arch, it creates a narrative, but avoids forcing the facts into a 'theory'. It has respect for the facts and the many different strands of processes that together constitute the fibers of reality.
An outstanding reading, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is interested in Japan, the history of East-Asia, the Second World War, in history in general, or in politics and international relations.
Saturday 4 June 2016
Friday 3 June 2016
Michael Sandel in Oxford
Michael Sandel is a philosopher working at Harvard Uni. His specialization is in political philosophy. Sandel has been working in the last years on the connection between markets and morals. He is well known and respected for his work as a researcher among philosophers since a long time, but he became sort of a celebrity a few years ago when his lecture series on 'Justice' at Harvard went viral on the net.
Yesterday he gave a dashing talk at the Sheldonian in Oxford. The event was organized by the Oxford Martin School, who have a strong programme of outstanding speakers impacting public policy.
Sandel is not only an eloquent speaker, but also holds the ability to engage his audience, fostering a debate in which people actually get to voice their arguments and positions. Sandel then masterfully summarizes these, points out their strengths and builds up a very common sense argument for a strong moral position.
In this particular talk Sandel argued against the view that it would be sensible to monetize every social issue and to always look for economic and/or financial solutions for social issues. The example of most importance he - and the audience - discussed was that of the proposed option that many countries with developed economies would like to have, that instead of reducing their carbon emission they should be able to pay to developing countries so that rather they reduce their emissions. As it emerged from the discussion, while in the short term this might be a solution for the particular problem of CO2 emission levels, in the long run it simply fosters the avoidance of problems and of assuming responsibility - political, economic, and moral - of dealing with problems caused by one's behavior. Such thinking will just lead to the same kind of structural problems re-emerging again and again, and instead of avoiding them by changing one's behavior - or economic policy - the problems will simply be put off, or 'outsourced'. The issue here is of course that moral harm is done by harming the environment to such an extent that it might become uninhabitable and lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people in the future. To mask this as an economic problem is to avoid dealing with it at face value.
You can buy Sandel's recent books here and here, the reader to the 'Justice' course here, watch a neat TED talk of his here, and download his Tanner Lectures talk here.
Yesterday he gave a dashing talk at the Sheldonian in Oxford. The event was organized by the Oxford Martin School, who have a strong programme of outstanding speakers impacting public policy.
Sandel is not only an eloquent speaker, but also holds the ability to engage his audience, fostering a debate in which people actually get to voice their arguments and positions. Sandel then masterfully summarizes these, points out their strengths and builds up a very common sense argument for a strong moral position.
In this particular talk Sandel argued against the view that it would be sensible to monetize every social issue and to always look for economic and/or financial solutions for social issues. The example of most importance he - and the audience - discussed was that of the proposed option that many countries with developed economies would like to have, that instead of reducing their carbon emission they should be able to pay to developing countries so that rather they reduce their emissions. As it emerged from the discussion, while in the short term this might be a solution for the particular problem of CO2 emission levels, in the long run it simply fosters the avoidance of problems and of assuming responsibility - political, economic, and moral - of dealing with problems caused by one's behavior. Such thinking will just lead to the same kind of structural problems re-emerging again and again, and instead of avoiding them by changing one's behavior - or economic policy - the problems will simply be put off, or 'outsourced'. The issue here is of course that moral harm is done by harming the environment to such an extent that it might become uninhabitable and lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people in the future. To mask this as an economic problem is to avoid dealing with it at face value.
You can buy Sandel's recent books here and here, the reader to the 'Justice' course here, watch a neat TED talk of his here, and download his Tanner Lectures talk here.
People who will be affected by Brexit, but don't get to vote
The Guardian ran a short compilation of profiles of people from the EU currently working and living in the UK. The piece focuses on how people see and feel about the vote, and what their fears are about a possible 'Leave' win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)