Slavery and Climate Change? Are Reparations Needed?

Simon Caney starts off this article by distinguishing the reason for why he wrote this paper. He aims to claim "the moral implications of historic environmental injustices and, in particular the moral implications of global climate change" (Caney, page 464). 

He goes in depth on the issue of paying reparations to those who suffered from environmental injustice. He also brings up the issue that compensation needs to be given out, but who should pay it and who should it go to?

Who Should Pay It? 

This article reminded me of a previous article we wrote about and it had to do with the question "who has the onus of paying for climate change impacts?" This question is somewhat answered throughout Caney's piece. He argues that developed countries should be the ones paying reparations since these types of countries produce and use the most resources, contributing the highest to anthropogenic climate change. 

Who Should Receive It? 

Well, if the highly developed countries are the highest contributors, he offers that the compensation should be offered to developing countries who faced effects of the climate change that they did not cause. Caney also brings up the ways in which anthropogenic climate  change has been enhanced over the years. Stating, for example, that during the Industrial Revolution, the British contributed immensely to climate change, but should those who are currently living in the United Kingdom bear responsibility for compensating those who suffered as a result of the industrialization? Caney offers two reasons that disproves this hypothesis. 

https://www.reinventinggreenbuilding.com/news/2019/8/8/unjkokeiqp95ai5184yhgs34pgbj0u

Reparations for Slavery? 

Caney does not really offer much about the ties between human induced climate change and slavery reparations. 

There is a section that talks about personal onus and its relation to past events. I will expand this claim. 

Caney argues that the benefits that people gained from the industrial revolution are no longer applicable since the people who received such benefits are no longer alive. So, should current individuals pay for the benefits that those people gained, which contributed to anthropogenic climate change? 

This issue can relate to slavery as well. Should people who are relatives with a former slave owner be responsible for providing compensation to current people who have experienced a form of slavery in their family origin? 

Caney offers two accounts for providing justification for assigning duties to people, the Causal and Beneficiary Account. The Causal Account refers to the people who were faced with the unfortunate problems and the Beneficiary Account deals with the people who benefited from certain actions, and dealing with the duty-bearers. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=reparationsm+forslavery&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjIrZ7jh9rsAhVGeDABHX-vBzgQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=reparationsm+forslavery&gs

Caney does not deny that slavery reparations are needed, but he struggles to find the way in which they should be paid and by who.

His best offer is that people with higher standards of living, highly developed countries, should offer compensation for those with lower standards of living or less developed countries. The moral significance of social injustice practices such as slavery, induce a form of responsibility associated with providing some form of compensation towards people who have had an effect from slavery in the past. 

To answer the main theme of this blog, "are reparations needed?" : YES! We need to find a better way of dealing out compensation and a more approachable method in delineating those responsible, if any. 

How is a Clock Defined? What are the Quantitative Units?

 

                                               https://www.google.com/search?q=atomic+clock&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS864US864&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSs6_NtbnsAhUNl3IEHdPrDHAQ_AUoAnoECCMQBA&biw=1440&bih=711#imgrc=a2DXb6NFr0SxDM

What is this some may ask? 

Well, actually it is a clock! Although it looks nothing like our standard analog or digital clock, this is what is known as an Atomic clock. 

What is an Atomic Clock?

First off, it is located in Boulder, Colorado. Simply, it is the clock that is the basis for United State's time. It sets the official time for the U.S. Looking in depth, electrons are the keys to the reason that this clock is used. When these electrons are exposed to certain frequencies, they have the ability to jump back and forth between energy states within the internuclear axis. Clocks based off of this atom jumping phenomena can therefore provide extremely precise measurements for counting seconds. 

How do we Quantify/ Define Seconds?

Tal makes a point stating that, "the notion of a stable frequency is an idealized one, derived from the theoretical definition of a second" (Tal 301). 

But, how do we define a second?

Theoretically, the second has been defined as the exact duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to a hyperfine transition of caesium-133 in the ground state. 

https://www.bipm.org/metrology/time-frequency/units.html

This is the equation in mathematical form. There is also a way to inverse this equation so that Delta v Cs is on the top and 9,192,631,770 is on the top. This would result in producing Hz. Thus, a period of 1 second is equal to one Hz, they are inverse. 1 Hz=1 s^1-.

But, we are all very accustomed to denoting a second as 1/60 of a minute. When we look at an analog clock, we may pay attention to the seconds hand, but in this day in age with our advancements in technology, iPhones and such have merely eliminated that factor. Another reason is that people are not reliant or worried about exact time unless necessary for an application. Perhaps, I could make the assumption that fields where exact measurements for time are necessary, is where seconds are most utilized (example; chemist or physicist). 

What do Standard Clocks Measure?

As Tal argues in this piece, time is standardized. A standard clock counts periods of some period changes. Early on in history, time was based off the assumption that Earth's daily rotational rate was constant. But, these time standards were replaced in 1952 based off of Earth's orbital period and relative motion of the moon. We are all well known to looking at a standard clock and stating the time, "Hey Mom, what is the time" ...looks at the clock..."Oh it is 4:34". But, why?...How?...What does it mean?

Constructivism:

This is the position that I saw Tal argue for the most. It has to do with the fact that time has been theorized all throughout history. But, do we actually have a firm grasp of what it is? The theoretical commitments that have been socially accepted throughout history, are merely thoughts, ideas, and theories that cannot be tested. So, how are we supposed to know if they are true or not? This is why time is relative, it depends on the observer's frame of mind or perspective. No one knows if it is actually true, not even the brightest physicist could come out and state ,"Time is definable, here is the equation." This is because it is all theoretical...

Closing Thoughts:

The above paragraph provides some insight for the reason why time is standardized. If everyone had their own opinions on time, there would be no frame of reference to base off. Hence, the atomic clock or even the standard iPhone give us a relative idea of time that we all use to base our actions on. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+time&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS864US864&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjziuL3vrnsAhVxYjUKHRNPBNwQ_AUoA3oECBcQBQ&biw=1440&bih=711#imgrc=tADlRR_yYDMvhM

Relativity of Simultaneity; Time

 What is the relativity of simultaneity?

The concept that distant simultaneity (whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time) is not absolute, and depends on the observers vantage point.

I think this graphic provides a simple, yet brilliant example of this phenomena. Although in the both diagrams the balls are traveling with different velocities from different distances, they still reach the wall at the same time. This is a classic physics problem that has to do compensating for lost distance and velocity. Although in the top picture the ball are placed at 100m, in the bottom, the balls are released from a slightly different midpoint to accommodate for the change in velocities.

The study depicts the relativity of simultaneity with the use of a light signal and without one. Both studies are right, the only change and argument arises with the fact of the difference of perspective based off of the observer. The reasoning to each of these cases arises with the clock. The clocks at A and B show time "0" when events occur at each. But, these events are not simultaneous for the observer, thus it will appear that the clocks are not properly in sync. 

What the relativity of simultaneity is NOT...

The effect observed is not questionable, it comes down to the timing which is based of observer perspective. The example given in the text refers to someone being struck by lightning and the sound of thunder. For the person being struck, the events (lightning crashing the sound of thunder) would be simultaneous events, but someone who is in the distance not effected by these events will see the lightning and then hear the crack of thunder, thus the events are not simultaneous. The reliance of perspective is massive when dealing with relative simultaneity. 

This example is a way to demonstrate "Appearance Simultaneity". Events are simultaneous in the sense, only if our sensations of them happen at the same moment. This is not the same as the relativity of simultaneity, as in this phenomena, we correct for differences in appearances. The relativity of simultaneity of relativity theory arises after oddities have been corrected for the appearance simultaneity. Even after, the timing for observers will still be up for debate.

In Special Relativity, is time unreal?

This concept ties in perfectly with relative simultaneity. Einstein says that "time is relative". This means that in the quantum realm, the rate at which time passes is determined by one's frame of reference. So does this answer the question of is time unreal in Special Relativity? Not really...time still exists, its the vantage point that changes the reference for it. Meaning that time will always be here, and it will always be quantifiable, but it depends on the observer and point of view. 

Time is always moving, thus we are able to depict it in many different ways. Thus, the frame of reference plays a key role in determining the time and its constantly moving aspects.

BTW, I love physics and the ideas of quantum theory, thus reading about Einstein, was very interesting, since I have previously done research on this in the past.

What is Time?

 

The first question I want to ask everyone is...is time even a real thing? 

I have thought about the theory of time for many years now, as I enjoy finding out things that seem to be labeled with a big question mark. I think of time, not as a physical or truthful "thing", but as a concept, an idea in which we use it to reference our lives off of. 

Before I read this article,  my perception on time was somewhat vivid, as most people are probably in the same boat. The idea of time is just a very difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around. The image above suggests that time is an infinite sequence, it cannot stop, it only moves forward, but what exactly is it?

Since the debate of time is so broad, my understanding of time was summarized by McTaggart's series. As I read through the article, something from each point resembled my understanding of time.

What does the "unreality of time" really mean?

McTaggart lists many different ideas (series) of time that try and offer many explanations or routes that this concept could follow.

The "unreality of time" cannot really explained, thus the reason why McTaggart uses this term throughout. He argues that time is unreal since it not quantifiable and our descriptions of time are contradictory, circular, and insufficient. 

The reoccurring theme throughout was the fact that it is hard to differentiate the past, present and future based off of the current depiction of time. It is impossible to know if all things actually exist. For instance, dinosaur existence, although proved by scientists, there is still a degree of uncertainty since those events occurred in the past, and truthfully we do not have a complete recollection. 

There is a common phrase "time does not wait for you". At first, many people do not really break down or care to understand its value. But, it is the truth, time keeps moving, but does it actually? We base time off a 12 hour clock, some areas use a 24 hour clock. These variations are only a simulation; a reference for how we live our lives; a mere representation to keep a schedule for people. Although we do technically quantify time, we do not actually know how to do so. 

The Mayan calendar ended December 21st, 2012. I remember this day, we all thought the world was going to end. It did not...clearly.

Time is indeed an unreality, we cannot correctly distinguish, identify, or gain adequate knowledge about it. So, I was not surprised by McTaggart's arguments, as honestly I have done similar thinking about these arguments, I have even conducted extensive web searches, and most of this information are common ideologies among people who deeply thought about the concept of time, and its unrealistic principles.