Author: Milan

In the spring of 2005, I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in International Relations and a general focus in the area of environmental politics. In the fall of 2005, I began reading for an M.Phil in IR at Wadham College, Oxford. Outside school, I am very interested in photography, writing, and the outdoors. I am writing this blog to keep in touch with friends and family around the world, provide a more personal view of graduate student life in Oxford, and pass on some lessons I've learned here.

Antipodean thoughts

Probably prompted by the miserable weather in the past few days, I have been looking through photos online from the Burning Man Festival. For those who haven’t heard of it, the festival is an eight day long event in Black Rock Desert in Nevada. It involves the creation of a temporary city and lots of crazy art and expression. This year’s theme – about the relationship between nature and humanity – sounds especially pertinent. If nothing else, it would provide some superb photographic opportunities.

I think it would be an awesome road trip objective: especially if the cadre of those going included Tristan and Meaghan Beattie.

[Update: 4:30pm] The more I read about this, the more intensely I want to go. Who else would be up for it and thinks they could spare the time at the end of this summer? It runs from Monday, August 28th to Monday, September 4th. Jonathan? Alison? Kate? Neal? Lauren? Sarah P? Lindi? Sasha W? Others? I would be keen to go with any/all of you.

McKinsey no longer a possibility

Iason Gabriel and Milan Ilnyckyj

It seems as though management consulting can probably be stricken from the list of things that I may be doing next year. Based on the employment history listed on my CV, it was always a long shot: computer sales at Staples, juice bar attendant at the Olympic Athletic Club, janitor at the King’s Court Apartments, etc. In response to my application letter and CV, I got the following from McKinsey & Company today:

We have read your application with interest. Regrettably, we have decided not to invite you for an interview. We were impressed by your achievements; however, based on our screening criteria for potential consultants, we do not believe that you currently match our requirements in some areas.

Certainly, it is a bit disappointing. McKinsey has an excellent reputation, even if the kind of work that they do isn’t the sort that I see myself as likely to be enormously interested in or good at. Providing business-related advice to companies really doesn’t sound like a job that would play to my advantages; also, the crushing seven day weeks and ten hour days that seem to be the complement to McKinsey’s excellent pay are hardly compatible with the possibility of using free time next year to apply to doctoral programs.

Where should I try applying next?

Partisanship and politics

I read an article by Wells Tower in this month’s issue of Harper’s called “The Kids are Far Right” that seemed primarily meant to terrify readers with anecdotes about conference rooms crammed full of teenage conservative partisans. Many of the passages did have a chilling effect upon me, but I think the piece is more important for what it reveals about conviction, deliberation, and the nature of political consensus that for the direct observations included.

The most difficult kind of politics to deal with theoretically is the variety based upon a zero-sum consensus on who is right, and who can impose their views. Under such an order, the key elements of certain issues are no longer really under discussion: people have taken positions and are preparing to fight it out as can best be managed. While I intuitively feel as though it’s important for there to be a real discussion, there is no escaping the desperate twinge that accompanies reading about people who want to auction the national parks to timber companies, take education entirely out of the hands of government, and who believe that the greatest injustice relating to Hurricane Katrina was the police taking away some people’s guns. “Live and let live” is not a dictum that can be applied when the contest is over institutions and resources that are in contention between dissenting groups, especially when they are likely to be used to force certain modes of living upon the ‘losers’ of the political struggle.

People who adopt the kind of xenophobic, militaristic, and anti-government perspective highlighted in the Harper’s article seem, to me, outside the sphere in which political discussion can take place. That said, they probably feel likewise about people who believe that in an ideal world, natural resources would be managed internationally, that nobody in a well-ordered society has reason to own a personal firearm, or that governments should get out of the business of defining who can or cannot get married.

There is considerable attraction in the idea of moderation: both as something with inherent value and a mechanism for convincing the undecided. That said, regardless of your political leanings there are things about which it is intolerable to argue feebly. To be forceful, honest, and convincing in expressing moral and political views is profoundly difficult in a partisan environment. When surrounded by those who agree, the danger is that of slipping into the kind of irresponsible certainty that the Harper’s article indirectly accuses the conservative conference of fostering. When surrounded by those with a profoundly different view, the danger is to mount an overly insular and reactionary defence. In either case, the difficulty of dealing with profound differences of opinion is underscored.

WTO debate tomorrow

Tomorrow’s developing world class consists of a debate about the WTO. We were asked last week whether we believed, at an intuitive level, that the WTO was good on balance for developing countries or not. I put up my hand along with those who thought that the organization is imperfect, but slightly beneficial on balance. As such, I was assigned to argue the opposite position tomorrow.

The odd thing is that a week of reading all the reasons for which the WTO is a raw deal for the developing world has made me much more skeptical about my original position. I am not sure if that’s just the much-innoculated ability to make a good argument, or whether my personal position has actually changed. This may represent a reasoned change of opinion through learning, and it might just be a cognitive realignment based on an assigned social role. Either way, I will put up a link to my portion of the presentation, as well as the notes from the seminar, after class tomorrow.

Another school-related note: today’s thesis seminar presentation went better than expected. People seemed very keen on the idea in general, with the only real criticism being the need to focus things reasonably tightly. Hopefully, I will meet Dr. Hurrell about it soon.

[Update: 16 November 2006] Notes on our side of the debate are now on the wiki. So too are notes from the seminar itself. One more project down.

Paul Martin on economic governance

Paul Martin and Milan Ilnyckyj

Former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin’s talk was candid, informative and engaging. At a Global Economic Governance Program seminar, he covered a very diverse collection of issues: from China’s hunger for natural resources to the regulation of multinational corporations. I have never seen the room so packed, and the questions were excellent. He managed to get some good laughs, as well. In response to my question about climate change, he said, in part:

“Climate change has long since been recognized as caused by human activity principally.

The net effect is going to be devastating.

Prince Edward Island will disappear; Toronto won’t. That’s a disaster on both sides

That would make a great headline back home, wouldn’t it?”

Generally, he was very open, but there were certainly a few notable questions ducked. He declined to endorse a candidate for the Liberal leadership race when asked, for instance. People should feel free to have a look at my transcript, in which I have tried to quote directly wherever I could type fast enough.

PS. As today’s photo demonstrates, there is a downside to having a camera that takes 2-3 seconds to charge and fire its flash.

Far from entertaining

Orange flowers

I was going to write something tonight about international law, but the present craziness of things has extinguished my desire to do so. An ongoing dispute with my college is especially sapping, as far as energy goes, and I need to conserve and enhance what fraction remains for the presentation and reading tomorrow. The porters, butler, and I have progressed into a weird realm of overlapping denials. I maintain that mine are entirely truthful, but we have reached the point where nobody can withdraw a claim without losing face. Hopefully, the whole thing will sink below the waves in a short while.

In exchange for not providing something interesting to read, perhaps I can provide something useful. As I explained earlier, as part of an extensive thesis-related analogy, the best way to photograph cats or human babies is to set up all your equipment, make all necessary adjustments, and then snap your fingers above the lens, a moment before you hit the shutter. Creatures of the sorts described will look at the source of the sound, intuitively. If only the attention of the rampaging beast that is my thesis topic could be focused so easily…

Thesis presentation tomorrow

I have come up with a draft handout for my thesis presentation tomorrow. I still don’t feel entirely confident about the the content. I know the general neighbourhood in which the thesis lives, but I am not yet sure of exactly how I am going to organize it and deal with it all. I’ve never had to write something longer than 6,000 words before, with the exception of a few long but decidedly non-academic letters.

Partly, I just don’t feel like I have read enough of what’s out there. It can be quite hard to do, when there is everything from a job search to seminar readings to papers that must be written pressing more urgently at my waking hours.

I have an evolving thesis timeline online, as well as an increasingly outdated thesis outline. The latter will get a facelift on the basis of the comments I receive in seminar tomorrow.

Thesis flowchart: data to action

One thing the thesis should definitely include is flowcharts. They make it easier to disentangle what is going on in complex relationships, both by clearly showing what phenomena are connected, and by suggesting the direction(s) in which causality runs. Here is one that I came up with, regarding the relationship between personal consensus (the position a person reaches after having thought a question through and reached an answer that satisfies them internally) and group consensus:

Data to action flowchart

The starting point is the data presented to the individual. This consists both of empirically observed phenomena and of representations of truth made by others. There is an internal dynamic here. For instance, a person who has been reading a lot about global warming might be prejudiced towards interpreting an unusually hot summer in their part of the world as evidence for that trend. This is partly captured in the two-way arrow with group consensus, but it is also a matter of internal cognition.

Both empirical data and arguments (both logical and those based on other kinds of rationality) are transformed into personal opinions through the applications of heuristics. Examples of heuristic reasoning devices include:

  1. Conceptions about which individuals and groups provide trustworthy information
  2. Conceptions about what kind of evidence is strong or weak (for instance, opinions on the use of statistics or anecdotes)
  3. Particular facts that are so thoroughly believed that they become a touchstone against which other possibilities are rejected

This is not a comprehensive listing, but it gives an idea of the kind of mechanisms within a single person that are at work when forming opinions.

The link from personal opinions to personal choices is not a simple linear one. A second category of heuristics exist that do not determine what is considered true. Instead, they determine which opinions are important; specifically, they determine which opinions are important enough to deserve action.

Two major types of personal choices are represented in this model. Those in the box ‘personal choices’ could be called direct actions. This would include something like buying a hybrid car or boycotting a company. Within the arrow between personal opinions and group consensus lies the other kind of action: namely advocacy actions, in which an individual tries to convince other individuals or groups to adopt the same position the original individual has already reached. That feeds into the “information and arguments” boxes for other people, as well as contributing to the group phenomenon of consensus.

Group action is thus both the sum of personal choices, and the product of public deliberation leading to institutional or societal choices. Here again, a process of prioritization takes place.

An adapted version of this diagram could be constructed for scientists and for non-scientists. The biggest difference would be that scientists can engage in a broader project of empirical examination, thus contributing in a different way to the information and arguments being presented to others. They may well also employ different kinds of heuristics, when forming personal choices.

Carbon offsets

Bug on a flower

Cycling home with a £5 quarter-kilo of Fair Trade coffee, I found myself thinking about carbon offsets. These are financial instruments in which an individual or group pays someone else to reduce the carbon emissions they would otherwise have produced, so as to offset the buying individuals own carbon emissions. Al Gore used them to make the production of An Inconvenient Truth carbon neutral. They were also used by The Economist to make their Survey on Climate Change (Subscription required) carbon neutral. At the end of the opening article, they explain:

This survey, which generated about 118 tonnes of carbon dioxide from flights, car journeys, paper production, printing and distribution, has been carbon-neutralised through the Carbon Neutral Company. The cost was £590; the money was spent on capturing methane from an American mine.

According to the calculator at climatecrisis.org (the site set up by Al Gore to accompany his book and film), my annual carbon emissions are about 1.6 tons, including two trans-Atlantic flights a year. Not having a car and living in a shared dwelling makes a big difference, even if all our power is coming from the huge coal plant at Didcot.

At the rate The Economist paid, I could offset that for £8. It might be a worthwhile thing to include in my thesis. My only problem with it all is that it is hard to tell which of the many websites that sell offsets actually provide what they claim. There has been a kerfuffle recently about dodgy wind power cards. Does anyone know of a reputable place where I can offset those 1600 kilos of carbon? This site looks like a possibility.

Obviously, paying for the offsetting of your own carbon isn’t an adequate response to the issue of climate change (any more than buying Fair Trade coffee is an adequate response to global poverty), but it couldn’t hurt. It is also a potentially useful demonstration of how seriously you take the problem

[Update: 5:00pm] According to the company The Economist used, one round-trip flight from London to Vancouver generates 1.7 tonnes of CO2. As such, it would seem appropriate to offset at least four or five tonnes a year, to cover electricity, heating (however St. Antony’s does it), and travel.