Steiner Secrecy??

Excellent blog post here by Andy Lewis on the Steiner Free School that is being proposed in Bristol (see this Post story for the latest news on this here). Andy is rightly calling for the school's advocates to be fully open about what Rudolf Steiner (see left) and Anthroposophy stand for and whether/how this will be put into practice if the Bristol Steiner Free School goes ahead. Andy asks these pertinent questions:

1. Will you publish what associations you have with the Anthroposophical Movement?

 

2. Will you publish a full discussion of how Anthroposophy and Steiner’s work inspire teaching within the school?

 

3. Will you fully state how you ensure Steiner’s racial teachings do not influence the School?

 

4. Will you explain how Steiner’s work influences your teaching of science?

 

5. Will you publish what the spiritual and religious elements of your curriculum are?

 

6. What role does Anthroposophical Medicine play in your School’s ethos and how will you ensure parents are fully informed and the nature of any therapies or treatments given to students?

 

7. Will you tell parents about the gnomes?

You can read more views on Steiner and see links to many others from here: http://www.openwaldorf.com/steiner.html . Also see my previous post on the proposed school which expresses my particular concern that Steiner's ideas are highly inconsistent with modern science here.

Scepticism squashed?

The BBC report that: A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures...

...latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

...In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."...

Full story and access to lot of data, analysis, comment and debate via the BBC report here. Arguably it is because Prof Muller et al had a moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism that he reasoned that a change of mind was justified by the evidence. Long may moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism reign.

Road reason

A blanket 20mph speed limit on all of Bristol’s residential streets will be in place by 2015 (full story and debate here).This is a very good decision. For me the case for 20mph limits is that residential roads are for living not driving in. See here for why 20mph - http://tinyurl.com/bptjkoh
Many of the Mayoral candidates have been advocating it and are backing the decision because they know that its popular with the public. In the 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey 71% of people asked were in favour of 20mph speed limits on residential roads - http://tinyurl.com/cx2r2ca.

Some persist in saying that here is no logical or proven reason for 20mph limits in residential areas  but in fact there's plenty of research around. See this analysis of the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (http://tinyurl.com/bqbdogs) for instance. Those opposing 20 mph limits seem to be driven by something other than the evidence and reasoning upon it - see the debate on this story on The Post website here - with even more here - for plenty of examples of abuse, avoidance, denial, misinformation and misunderstanding...

Some repeat myths in their comments eg saying that air pollution would be worsened. Actually 20mph limits will NOT increase air pollution, as shown here  http://tinyurl.com/7gp2j89 and are a key feature of a more sustainable approach to urban living. The key is that the streets involved in this decision are residential streets ie people live there. Living there need not and most often does not exclude driving there of course but lets not forget that cyclists and pedestrians and not just motorised vehicles use roads and that all sorts of community activities can and should happen on residential streets if they are safe enough - and this brings me to another reason why I say streets are for living (by which I meant primarily for living) and that is that if the speed limit is 20 mph, in the unfortuneate event of a collision the people involved are much more likely to live than to die.

Some still argue that roads/streets, even residential ones, are primarily for cars and not pedestrians, cyclists and a range of activities, potentially. However, many of the roads/streets in Bristol were there long before cars were owned and used on a widespread basis and some go back even before the invention of the car. Mass car ownership did not take off in the UK until the 1950's and many things have happened on the roads/streets before and since. A good proportion of Bristol's roads/streets were never designed for cars. Roads are simply thoroughfares, routes, or ways on land from place to place - and in residential areas and in cities serve a wider purpose, including easement. Even where they were/are specially designed for car use why should we not choose, with general agreement, to adjust and manage that, especially in residential areas, so that the balance favours human beings not motorised machines running at a speed likely to kill or cause serious injury? See http://tinyurl.com/2vd7pq and also http://tinyurl.com/cgphzz7.

Others say introducing 20mph limits is a waste of money, can't be enforced and everyone will ignore it. They seem to have forgotten the evidence eg from RoSPA on their effectiveness. 20mph limits have saved lives where they have been introduced in Hull, London and elsewhere. See here. No-one has been able to dispute this evidence in the two lengthy online debates I've taken part in.

Daniella debate

Debate about Green Mayoral Candidate Daniella Radice on this post story eg by FOX_Joe - “Out to lunch bunch of daydreamers! Living in a bubble would be wonderful, but we don't. The most out of sync with reality 'political' party; in short communists with a slightly better education.”

My response: @ FOX_Joe - "Living in a bubble would be wonderful, but we don't."

Actually we do live in a bubble of sorts - the biosphere on our planet that provides all the resources that sustain our economy and society, has to take in all our wastes and pollutants and is the basis of our lives. Why call the people who plan to live sustainably and fairly in this bubble 'daydreamers' and unrealistic and not those who are squandering finite resources, blighting the world for future generations, building an economy that mainly benefits super-rich, corrupt and unethical bankers and their establishment politician and media friends and not general wellbeing...Your assessement is upside down FOX_Joe. Obviously I'm a green and so support Daniella and her policies but can you deny their rationale?
______________________________________________________

Copies of some further contributions I've made to the debate, which is pretty lively:

@ Richard34 - Daniella is proposing to go much further with devolving power than the current Neighbourhood Partnerships. She advocates creating - and Mayoral working with - democratically elected neighbourhood councils, which of course we dont currently have.

Current transport plans are hardly revolutionary and many aspects of the 'Greater Bristol Bus Network' and bus rapid transit - especially using bendy buses - have rightly been heavily critcised. There's been a lot of talk about public transport improvements in Bristol for decades and we have still got a lot of problems and a long way to go - thus the Greens proposals to create a major transport hub for local bus and train interchange at Plot 6 next to Temple Meads station and to develop the local economy in such a way as to improve local job creation, local shops and community facilities such that the need to travel long distances is cut.

On education Daniella will lobby the government to transfer the secretary of state's powers over free schools and academies to the Mayor, not to the council ie central government dictates are being opposed and local democracy favoured.
______________________________________________________

@ BCFC Finker - ok, still nothing on policies or principles, so no genuine substance to your comments. And dont forget that people will have two votes in the Mayoral election, one for first and one for second preference. People can therefore vote both with their heart and with their head. This may cause some interesting voting patterns, especially with the Lib Dems and Tories struggling due to the persistent failures of the Coalition Govt.
______________________________________________________

“@SouthvilleDav - Greens like Daniella and I have long been campaigning aginst biofuels - they simply aren't green at all - see http://tinyurl.com/88tf85o As for what you say on solar energy, you are absolutely right - and I'd go further and say that we should be investing in solar to grow the industry in this country so we can supply as much as we can for ourselves.
______________________________________________________

@ Richard34 - you are arguing against greater democracy and against democracy being closer to people instead of remote and in the hands of a few eg a single individual as Mayor. Its partly because democracy is not in people's hands in their neighbourhoods that voters have become disillusioned and politicians self-serving and unethical. There's nothing woolly about what Greens are proposing on this as neither you or anyone else have been unclear on what the plans are.

The current bus station is clearly badly located and our whole public transport system needs a redesign, including creating a proper integrated transport hub at Termple Meads, which is beginning to go through a redesign process anyway. We need to be much more ambitious with our integrated transport planning or we will never make a dent in serious problems of congestion, delay, air pollution, carbon emissions...Current plans wont make a dent in these problems and in fact will make some of them worse!!

Thinking that the current education system is 'wonderful' is a very big mistake. Conservatives once told us we needed GCSEs for instance and now have gone full circle to tell us we dont need them we need the old O'levels or similar!! Greens are not just talking about a transfer of power from central government to the Mayor but to the Mayor working in a partnership with neighbourhood councils and the parents, teachers, governors and pupils/students themselves given that the system is for them and their community not for ideologues in any political party, certainly in a remote central government. Lets have some parent, pupil and people power in the system.

Drugs discussion

Tory MP Michael Ellis has, as reported in this story, reacted to Danny Kushlik in the way many politicians - across political parties - have reacted on the issue of illegal drugs over many years. Its a shame that he's not more open to new thinking on this matter. Does he not realise that continuing on with more or less the same old, failed attitudes and polices, throwing a lot of - misdirected - money at the problem, is irrational? Politicians need to base their policies on drugs on the evidence, such as this research comparing legal and illegal drugs: http://tinyurl.com/3ao562j

Decision before evidence?

Bristol City Council rejected the chance to build a tram system despite figures showing it would be cheaper than the proposed new Bus Rapid Transit link, it has been claimed....Sustraco claimed that Mr Kent [Bristol City Council Cabinet Member for Transport, pictured left] announced at the end of the meeting that the council had already decided "before the meeting" that the bus option would be chosen. On returning from the meeting, Sustraco officials said they found they had been sent e-mails with a 34-page report attached. The report, which Sustraco said was written before the meeting, detailed the decision without considering evidence submitted in the meeting...(full story here)

Only one conclusion can be drawn from this, if what Sustraco say is true. Tim Kent and the Lib Dem Cabinet running Bristol made a decision involving many millions of pounds without considering the all the evidence. Kent met with Sustraco knowing that holding the meeting was pointless given that decisions had already been made! Unless Sustraco's description is shown to be wayward, this is irrational, unreasonable and deceptive behaviour whatever the merits or not of light rail vs BRT.

Leadership logic???

Bristol's elected Mayor would be one of the most powerful figures in Britain according to Cities Minister Greg Clark . I doubt that very much. (full story)

Never saw it as logical to have an election for a Mayor without knowing beforehand what powers exactly the office would have. If the Govt are saying the decision can be taken before the Mayor is elected this November why couldn't that have been done before the vote in May??

Arguably if you not going to annouunce the powers of the Mayoral office from the off then its logical to wait to hear the views and ideas of the person elected before finally deciding on them. The Govt argue that Bristol's current local council leadership is unsatisfactory but is quite happy to negotiate with them the powers of the person that will take leadership away from them! Huh???? 

Steiner and science

A group of parents and teachers have launched a campaign to create a new free school. The Bristol Steiner Free School group announced...that it would bid next February for government approval of the project. Free schools are state-funded but independent of council control and set up in response to demand from groups of parents....[The group said the school would have] a strong academic element, specialising in environmental sciences...The Steiner School movement emerged from the ideas of early 20th century educationalist Rudolf Steiner. (full story).

Steiner (pictured) claimed direct experience of the 'spiritual' world. He was a philosopher, occultist, social reformer, architect, esotericist. and founded Anthroposophy. Anthoposophy claims to investigate the spiritual world and believes it can attain precise and clear conclusions in the same way that science concludes about the physical world.

I've been an active green for 30 yrs and I teach environmental sciences  (which is simply the proper application of scientific methods to the environment). I do not support Steiner's ideas or Steiner Free Schools and would point to the British Humanist Association concerns about them (see http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1042 ).

Like others commenting on this Post report I can’t see how Steiner's ideas are at all consistent with modern science and its methods and so I am as concerned about Steiner Free Schools setting up with public money and support as I am about certain other kinds of Free School with a significant ideology behind them instead of openness, questioning and reason.

Background on Steiner:
http://www.rudolfsteinerweb.com/  and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner  

Technology tale

I'm an advocate of scientific and technological thinking. Many currently define technology far too narrowly though - and most often in terms of applied science, business and commerce. For more effective problem solving and opportunity taking we should be thinking more broadly and making connections - its more creative and more likely to anticipate consequences or potential consequences of actions.

Technology is not just about rational problem solving either, there are political, organisational and psychological dimensions. Technology is the sum total of our practical knowledge and it predates science, industrialisation, capitalism...Its something we need to learn to be more selective and controlled about adopting, through proper, thorough technological assessment processes.

Marriage menace???

More unreasonable rubbish is today being spoken against gay marriage with this: The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is stepping up its campaign against the government's plan to legalise same-sex marriage. In a letter being read in thousands of parish churches, the two most senior archbishops say the change would reduce the significance of marriage, and that Catholics have a duty to make sure it doesn't happen. Archbishop Peter Smith told the BBC a married couple and their children "forms the basic building block of a healthy society". (more here and here)
Why on Earth would allowing gay men and women to get married be any threat to heterosexual marriage? How would it or could it hinder the Catholic view of marriage as being between a man and a woman who want to procreate? Our society is more than big enough to accomodate different perspectives on marriage though apparently some religions and religious figures are not. It seems to me that their overreaction is much more of a threat to the institutions they say they value than gay marriage is. Take a look at some of the arguments on this issue:

Prayer piffle?

 A Devon town council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings, the High Court has ruled....(full story here). An eminently sensible decision. What on Earth have councils been doing summoning all councillors to Christian prayers in council chambers? Some councillors are Christians, some are of  other faiths, some hold to no particular faith, whilst others have no religious faith at all - and the business of councils should not be rooted in religion. Councils are for everybody and the fact that prayers have been part of formal council meetings for a very long time is not an argument based on reason to continue doing so. The overreaction to this court decision from government and church representatives has been pretty silly. 

...Mr Justice Ouseley said: "A local authority has no power under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, or otherwise, to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting, or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda."

He told the court: "There is no specific power to say prayers or to have any period of quiet reflection as part of the business of the council."...

He told the court: "The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful, provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend."...

A few other posts on religion here, here and here.

Sound science?

On badgers the Government and the National Farmers Union state that the scientific evidence backs culling. The Humane Society, The Wildlife Trusts and the Mammal Society amongst others dont think the evidence is there to support a cull. The contrast in views of the scientific evidence is pretty stark eg Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman saying 'We can't escape the fact that the evidence supports the case..' whilst Mark Jones, of Humane Society International UK refers to 'compelling scientific evidence that it will be ineffective...'. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16183926. If there are likely to be 'no end of difficulties', as PM David Cameron said on Countryfile last weekend, is the policy of culling trials a good one?

Why the differences in assessing the science? When can we and do we trust science and scientists? Here's my screencast on some questions to ask on this topic:


  

Join the dots

Copy of a screencast I put together introducing some of the key elements of systems thinking::

Cameron's Christianity Codswallop

David Cameron's pronouncements yesterday on Christianity are confused and send out mixed messages. He trumpets that we are a Christian country, when for many practical purposes we are not (see here) - Cameron himself said he was only a vaguely practicing Christian and over half the country said they were non-religious in the latest social attitudes survey! He calls for the revival of traditional Christian values but says he is full of doubts on major theological issues (see here). He's hardly setting a Christian standard is he, so what is he playing at?

His stated idea is that the return of Christian values would help us fight our 'moral collapse'. He's wrong to think that Christianity and the Bible or any other religion and its texts are the basis of our morality. Human beings developed a sense of what is right and wrong long before any formal relgions existed and very likely for evolutionary reasons.

Instead of pronouncing on Christianity his focus should be on effective, practical action to tackle the poor moral standards so evident in politics, policing, banking and financial services, in the media, and in the Christian Church itself. I'm fed up with expenses scandals, police corruption, greedy bankers and business-people, 'mafia-like' newspaper organisations, sexism, homophobia, child abuse scandals...and the advocacy of materialism we've long had from all political colours.

He should be looking at the privileged, influential position of Christianity in the UK and planning to make us a better secular society. He should think through whether the Bible is actually a consistent guide to anything at all. Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that '...the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unkown to each other, spanning nine centuries...unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.'

David Cameron should recognise that actually his doubt is a good thing. Doubt means you are thinking. It means you are asking questions, not accepting the status quo - seeking change for the better. Doubt helps us break away from unjustifiable traditions. With no evidence for the existence of God - quite the contrary in fact - and no convincing arguments either, why believe? If there is a God why is there so much undeserved suffering in the world eg those homeless, cold, hungry, thirsty, lonely, subject to war, terrorism and crime, in hospital...? As Woody Allen said God 'is an underachiever' !

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible that prompted David Cameron's comments has its significance of course. This book is a major, if not the major work of English literature. Atheist Richard Dawkins sums this up nicely in The God Delusion, '...the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.'.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16231223

*http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/952

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394

*http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/12/your-say-on-what-grounds-can-we-claim-to-be-a-christian-country-68525/

Hitchens vs Blair

Following his death, millions will, along with me, be greatly missing Christopher Hitchens, his speaking and writing. Here's a clip to illustrate:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418

Eco-Eddy??

Cllr Richard Eddy says he sympathises with '...the desire to protect our precious countryside from major development ' (here **). Why then does he favour constructing the South Bristol Link Road through it, stressing that he is a 'long-standing supporter of getting it finished' (see here)? Obviously protecting the countryside is not that high on his agenda - and mostly features in his world when seeking public political advantage with greenspeak!

Or is this more of Bristol Tory Cllr Eddy's special kind of 'logic'...the kind that allows him to say that the link road will 'ease congestion'(see here), despite all the weight of research evidence and experience for decades that shows building roads encourages car use which quickly fills them up to the point of congestion.

________________________________________________

**(Great letter on countryside protection from James Burden and Des Baker on the same page by the way - go to the link they give for more http://www.cpre.org.uk/ )

Seligman: wellbeing, happiness, PERMA

Looking over the views of Martin Seligman on the psychology of wellbeing and happiness today. His work is so valuable. Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D., works on positive psychology, learned helplessness, depression, and on optimism and pessimism. He is currently Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology and Director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He is well known in academic and clinical circles and is a best-selling author... See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Vhjmdp4nI

http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/bio.htm

http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4903464.stm

Proper planning prevents poor performance

Proper, prior, preparation and planning prevents poor performance. Pity the coalition government intends to take us even further away from a proper planning system then - they talk of sustainable development but yet again we have a government that empowers development without sustainability. See this excellent piece by George Monbiot:

This wrecking ball is Osborne's version of sustainable development
Economic growth is not the purpose of a planning system. It should meet human needs while the environment is protected

Impervious to experience, strangers to reason: the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, and the chancellor, George Osborne, have learned nothing from the economic crisis. They claim that laxer town planning "is key to our economic recovery". But the European countries hit hardest by the economic crisis – Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland – have weak planning controls and urban sprawl. The nations that have proved most resilient have tougher laws and compact settlements.

Strong planning is one of many factors, but it is symptomatic of a political culture that puts the national interest above the self-interest of the rich and the long view above the quick buck. Pickles and Osborne are seeking to rip up England's planning system for the same reasons that they want to drop the proposed new banking rules: corporate power, cronyism and plutocracy, the forces that got us into this mess.

Weak planning exacerbates economic problems because capital is diverted from productive uses into speculative ventures; cities decline as they hollow out; and badly sited businesses, disaggregated settlements and long travel times drag down economic efficiency...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/05/george-osborne-motorway-sustainable-development

'Safely' closing Oldbury nuclear power station costs £954m

Nearly a billion quid to close the damn thing. Taking decades, during which it produces no power whatsoever. Leaving a legacy of nuclear waste for many, many future generations. It always has been a joke to refer to nuclear as cheap, clean and green - the figures speak for themselves. It would be irrational to build more.

THE cost of decommissioning Oldbury Nuclear Power Station has been set at £954 million, latest figures have shown.

A revised document just published by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) gives the estimated sum for taking the plant out of action and clearing the site once it stops generating electricity.

But it will take about 90 years to achieve the "final end" status.

Oldbury is the oldest operating nuclear power reactor in the world, having started producing power in 1967. It has already exceeded its expected generating life by a couple of years and one of its two reactors will close down for good this summer...

Green spaces sell-off? Bristol City Council has no Plan B

What sort of environmental decision making is it that does not properly consider - and in fact reconsider - all the options available, planning for a range of situations? Very poor quality, irrational, unsystematic and unsystemic - in short rubbish! Even on its own money raising terms the green spaces flog off favoured by Lib Dem, Labour and Tory Councillors alike is failing as income expected is now only a quarter of that originally envisaged. Cllr Gary Hopkins high handed, dismissive tone is again clear in the Post report on this though. Pity this man is not at the end of his 4 yr term yet - resign and put yourself up for re-election this May Gary and see how you get on!

BRISTOL City Council has never looked at ways of paying for the £87 million parks improvement plan that didn't involve selling off green spaces, it has been revealed.

The authority has always maintained that disposing of up to 64 sites across the city was the only way that enough money could be raised to pay for improvements in up to 200 others.

But it turns out that in the last five years of the Parks Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS), the council has never costed or even considered a plan that doesn't involve land sales.

The original funding for the improvement plan was £41 million from land sales; £21 million of grant funding; £15 million of money from developers and £10 million from the council parks budget. Since these 2006 estimates, the council has dropped the amount it expects to raise from selling land from £41 million to £11 million...

Bristol Green spaces Bristol City Council Liberal Democrats