A Brief Revisiting of Peak Oil

For background on this subject go to this link:
http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2009/09/reality-of-peak-oil.html

Although discussed previously, the recent explosion of Deepwater Horizon and the resultant oil discharge into the Gulf of Mexico have some raising the issue of ‘Peak Oil’ as one of the hodgepodge of reasons to reduce the general reliance of oil in our society. The appropriate way to view ‘Peak Oil’ is the point where global oil production peaks and some believe that time as already occurred. Unfortunately others have expanded the peaking of production to signify a lack of available supply. Basically global production cannot reach the previous high because the total remaining supply of oil is insufficient. This distinction is not correct, for there are still large quantities of oil available.

Why can the statement be made that there are still large quantities of oil available? First, although it is true that most traditional existing wells are on the down-slope of their production curves, there are some remaining undeveloped traditional sites, mostly located in Iraq and Russia. In fact the prospective reserves in Western Iraq are thought to be especially large. Second, deepwater sites similar to Deepwater Horizon are still being explored and as technology continues to advance exploration of potential new sites will become more accurate and inexpensive. Most of the best deepwater sites are thought to be located off the Atlantic coast of South America and in the unfortunately fast-melting Arctic. Third, untraditional sources of oil have been identified (oil shale, oil sands, etc.) with very large deposits in Venezuela, Canada and even in the United States (Rocky Mountains). So with all of these additional acquisition opportunities around the world, not just in the Middle East why are there so many that believe the world has already entered the era of ‘Peak Oil’?

The simple answer is that each of these three types of resources have one major thing in common, oil extraction from these sources is more expensive than from current widespread traditional wells. Although many experts believe there are still large globally meaningful deposits that can be acquired through traditional wells, the countries that control the land containing this oil have been reluctant to allow foreign companies the opportunity to invest and conduct business under fair contracts. Thus, foreign companies do not view investment in these new undiscovered areas as profitable enough to warrant their time. Deepwater drilling has caught on in recent years as a viable alternative to unsuccessfully haggling with uncooperative foreign countries. However, as witnessed in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, deepwater drilling can be troublesome when things go wrong, environmentally and economically. Extraction from untraditional sources has been a hot topic in the petroleum industry for decades and as traditional sources become less and less available, the first serious wells are being developed, but mass production of these sources have stalled due to the high costs. Interestingly enough despite the belief of ‘Peak Oil’ it seems more likely than not that all three of these sources will be tapped to significant extent despite the significant cost obstacles because of the shear lack of alternatives and the necessity of oil in driving economic growth.

One of the chief elements to the cost obstacle is the classical volatility profile of oil prices. A general rule of thumb is that businesses love patterns and predictability. Some argue that the general volatility of oil price will keep petroleum companies from fully investing in these alternative sources types thus resulting in global production values that will fail to exceed current values. Basically a company needs to know if they are going to make profit on an investment a majority of the time and price volatility confuses the ability to make that prediction. Other potential unpredictability is what big consumption countries like the United States, China, India, etc. will do regarding carbon emission policy and how that new policy will influence oil price and consumption.

With falling ‘easy’ supply sources, future oil price volatility is somewhat reduced in that prices will steadily increase with few, if any, significant drop periods. Basically the future oil price curve will oscillate around a steadily increasing positive slope with the total period and amplitude of the oscillations dropping as the time progresses. An example of this concept is shown in below. The increase in oil price will eliminate a significant amount of trepidation for investment in more expensive sources. As long as a company can predict a profit to be made without a viable alternative, effort will be applied to make that profit.



Look at it this way: suppose you normally climb a 10 ft. tree to collect apples that you sell at a net profit of $30 per apple. Unfortunately almost all of the 10 ft. trees no longer have any applies available. However, there are 30 ft. trees will lots of apples, but the extra time and equipment required to collect apples from these higher trees will reduce the net profit per apple to $15. Some may question the will to continue to collect apples at half the profit, but if the individual cannot devote time to a more profitable venture (an option facing most oil companies) and people still want apples and can pay for them then apple collection will still occur. Right now the individual does not have the real viable option to sell oranges or some other fruit (biofuels) at $20 per unit, so apples it is.

Looking at possible environmental and energy regulations, some argue that changing dynamics in the United States will reduce demand for oil, thus reducing the total capacity for price increase thereby reducing investment incentive and total future supply. While it is true that average motor vehicle gas mileage will increase in the future with increasing design efficiencies of internal combustion engine driven vehicles along with further deployment of hybrid and 100% electric vehicles, there are some issues that are not addressed. While proponents are eager to mention these efficiency increases, they do not discuss the high probability of increasing fleet size. While motor vehicles will become more efficient, there will also be more of them on the road, which with the exception of 100% electric vehicles will increase oil demands. So when including changes in fleet size it is difficult to measure whether or not U.S. demand will actually drop and if it does, by what amount. Also increasing fleet size leading to increased oil demand is an especially large concern with developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil that may not have the infrastructure to support electrical vehicles and develop cleaner use power sources. Side note: some people cite China having 100-125 million electrical bicycles as a good thing, funny that they fail to mention that those bicycles are being powered by coal.

A quick detour to explain the importance of market forces. The two chief reasons why some believe the era of ‘Peak Oil’ has begun are that official oil discoveries have been declining significantly over the last 40 decades (most believe that the discovery peak was reached in the late 60s – early 70s) and significantly rising prices starting in the middle of 2005 which only dropped due to the global recession and an inability of large consumers to buy oil. Many believe that this ‘catastrophic’ price increase was due to rising demand finally breaking through outpacing of supply, thus ‘peak oil’ must be close. Unfortunately there may be a problem with this logic. As the average price of oil rose from approximately $41 (a barrel to approximately $60 a barrel, global oil production was maintained at a consistent 85 million barrels a day.

A steady-state production level despite rising prices (almost a 50% increase) initially implies an inability to increase production because basic economic theory anticipates some level of increase in supply to maximize the profit potential from a price increase that is not accompanied by a demand decrease. However, when oil prices really jumped through the roof in late 2007 to mid 2008 (exceeding over $130 a barrel) global production did slightly increase which implies a greater sense of control over the production value over basic economics. Without understanding the mindset of those in control of the principle rates of production (OPEC provides upper 30 to lower 40%) it is difficult to identify whether or not there is any production supply significance to the size of the increase. Note that in this radical oil price time frame, oil production reached a new global peak when prices were around their own maximum. When prices began to fall due to the global recession, production dropped as well.

There are two possibilities regarding existing tapped oil supplies with respects to supply changes occurring in response to the radical price changes. First, oil supplies have become rather inelastic thus it is difficult for supply to increase significantly in accordance to a price increase like basic economic theory anticipates. Second, increasing oil supply is more difficult than economic theory predicts due to an existing set of rules created by OPEC. There is reason to believe that the dramatic price shift was caused in part by oil speculation in the free market due to the past free-flowing credit market where anyone could get credit even if he/she did not have the necessary assets. The entry of purchasers that previously would be unable to purchase oil could easily spike prices. Such price reaction, and even manipulation, may have been viewed as ‘short-term’ in the minds of the producers, thus the corresponding increase in production was slower than theoretically anticipated. Overall a combination of both of the reasons make-up the rationality behind the production response with a greater weight on the inelasticity issue.

In the United States further questions regarding the inability of possible buyers to acquire credit will reduce demand for oil in the United States not from lack of want, but from lack of ability to pay. However, regardless of the change in the U.S. it is almost impossible to consider a drop in global demand driven entirely by market forces, because of rapidly expanding demand in the developing world and a vast amount of available credit for purchase. Therefore, despite higher production costs petroleum companies should not be deterred due to questions about demand.

Although it appears that the future marketplace will not drive a decrease in global demand, new global environmental regulations and new widespread electrical grid design fostered by government law and/or directives could. Administration of a carbon tax, cap and trade system and/or streamlining grid construction would have a positive effect on lower oil demand by either adding cost to oil exploration and production or reducing the costs for oil alternatives allowing them to be more competitive in the marketplace. Unfortunately all of the large oil consuming countries appear to only be slowly advancing to adding additional costs to oil and other carbon sources, if moving at all, thus as it stands it appears that very little demand shift will come from the one element that could create a significant short-term shift.

Even though oil will still be required in the global community and this requirement will continue to drive investment and exploration, historical evidence and economic theory predict that dealing with higher oil prices will be financially difficult for most societies, especially the United States. Historical evidence set a magic price of $80-85 per barrel before the probability of financial recession in the United States increases significantly. In fact a majority of the time that oil has been in or above this price threshold the economy has been officially in a recession. The two most important industries that are influenced by oil prices are transportation and food production (harvesting equipment for large factory farms). Therefore, if the reality of more expensive oil is almost guaranteed then new strategies need to be executed to improve the ability to maintain quality of life in the United States and probably later in the developing world as well.

Unfortunately the development and deployment of oil alternatives do not appear ready in the near-future to play any significant substitution role for oil. The popular refrain for this deficiency is the claim of economics, but the real reason is scale. While algae and cellulous-based bio-fuels may eventually churn out 10-20 million barrels of oil a year by 2020 when the global demand is 80-100 million barrels of oil a day that amount is rather worthless regardless of how much it costs to produce that bio-fuel. If ethanol-based fuel ever even got close to the current demand for oil a vast majority of the population would starve because of the land use competition between bio-fuel and foodstuffs. With regards to electrical and hybrid vehicles, despite heavy optimism from proponents heavy deployment is unlikely. Even if such a revolution occurred, it remains to be seen if the evolution of the electrical grid would keep pace with the new demand or uncertainty and brownouts would become the norm. So without the ability to depend on the brute force of viable alternatives the global community as a whole needs to decide on a course of action.

For example consider global trade and its dependence on shipping. A higher oil price increases the overall costs associated with shipping requiring an increase in the price paid by the businesses importing the good, a cost that will later be passed on to customers. Eventually the oil price will increase to a point where the consumer will be unable to purchase the good, which will end trade of the particular good in that particular region. Therefore, a new strategy must be implemented in the transportation sector to counteract the negative effects of the oil price increase. Shipping in general is rather efficient in maximizing capacity in order to save money (ships are loaded to near full capacity), so the change must come on the propulsion end. Reverting back to ‘no active force’ (a.k.a. wind power) is not a suitable solution because of the wait times between departure and arrival, especially for perishable goods. The development of an electrical motor powerful enough for a ship of any reasonable size seems unlikely and inherently inefficient.

Realistically bio-fuels and nuclear are the two most plausible alternatives for ship travel where due to supply issues nuclear has the advantage. However, how safe would it be to have thousands of nuclear vessels transporting goods across the ocean on a daily basis? Such a ship-based population would be much larger and more exposed to danger than ‘proof-of-concept’ nuclear submarines.

Overall when discussing ‘Peak Oil’ it seems silly to discuss a lack of available oil or even a lack of drive to access oil in more expensive and/or difficult locations. Instead the most ironic feature of ‘Peak Oil’ is that government and individual decision-making will most likely bring on its occurrence. Reduction of demand through increasing efficiency or use and further development of alternatives are the only real ways to enter the ‘Peak Oil’ era in the short-term. Maybe it would be more appropriate for ‘Peak Oil’ converts to talk about entering the ‘Expensive Oil’ era or the end of ‘Cheap Oil’. Sadly the era of ‘Expensive Oil’ may be better than the era of ‘Peak Oil’, but not by much. If society is to effectively manage the era of ‘Expensive Oil’ significant changes need to be made with regards to travel and food production.

Brief Discussion of Precision Statistics

This blog has previously discussed the importance of using statistical analysis when making decisions and analyzing information. However, one point that was not made was that both the information used in the analysis and the methodology of the analysis need to focus on generating meaningful conclusions. Without meaningful conclusions the analysis itself is rather worthless and may even lead people to misunderstand the power of statistics.

For example a very simple example of the real descriptive power of statistics can be taken from analysis of possession percentage from soccer (football). Ball possession is often considered one of the more important statistics because it typically describes which team is controlling the flow of the game. However, the description of control is extremely broad. If possession was divided between the offensive and defensive half then statistical analysis is significantly more powerful in generating an understanding of the general behavior of the game. If the new possession statistic demonstrates a large amount of total possession, but most of it in the defensive half then without watching any tape one can reasonably anticipate that such a team uses a long-ball based offense and pushes extra bodies back on defense. Interestingly soccer has already demonstrated the power of deeper statistical analysis where stats are taken of not only of shots on goal, but also how many of those shots are on target illustrating the overall effectiveness of the shots attempted.

One may argue that using such a simplistic example does a disservice to the importance and power of precision statistics, but most people inherently shy away from statistics and would probably not appreciate and/or understand more eloquent and complex examples. Therefore, when dealing with statistical neophytes it is important to introduce precision statistics through a medium that these individuals will care about, thus motivating an attempt to understand driven to better their own knowledge as a means to better enjoy the medium. Basically killing one bird with two stones. Overall not only is it important to include statistics in any deterministic analysis, but the representation of those statistics needs to be appropriate both in accuracy and depth so they tell the important parts of the story.

Revisiting Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

The recent evidence demonstrating that the brain in a relaxed wakeful state requires approximately 20 times more energy than when the conscious mind is focused on a single task provides an interesting angle on the further exploration of the principle action(s) behind consciousness. One of the initial avenues of explaining the additional energy requirement is the belief that without focus instead of not addressing any possible outcome outside of those required for maintaining life, all possible outcomes are considered. The consideration of all possible outcomes within the current parameters of a relaxing mind could make sense because the first duty of the primitive mind is survival. Survival odds are increased when more information can be processed regarding a given situation, thus the brain would attempt to acquire as much information as possible by considering all possible scenarios. If that is the case, perhaps it provides some interesting insight back into theories relating to quantum mechanical properties of consciousness.

Without a point of focus the brain runs on a default state that can be akin to various uncollapsed wave functions. Recall that in quantum mechanics wave functions are in a continuous state of flux and cannot be defined until that function collapses which usually occurs through observation of the wave function. The very process of conscious thought could be considered as the observation of a very complex wave function which results in a set ‘focused’ pattern of firing collapsing various smaller wave functions in the brain to create the characteristics of the original complex wave function. The collapse of all of these wave functions reduces the amount of energy required because the conscious mind has determined to focus on a single given scenario.

One potentially interesting experiment regarding the above supposition is to see if different ‘noise’ environments produce different levels of energy expenditure. For example suppose an individual is placed in an environment with a lot of foot traffic vs. one with no foot traffic and see if and how energy consumption patterns change when the subject attempts to relax. The purpose of this experiment is based on the presumption that the more possible scenarios the can be comprehended by the brain the greater the number of subconscious wave functions will not be collapsed increasing the total amount of required energy expenditure. If energy consumption does change then that result could be used as a very general element of support for quantum mechanical involvement in consciousness. However, if energy consumption does not change then one of three conclusions can be drawn.

First, the subconscious brain already considers all possible scenarios for all possible situations through uncollapsed wave functions regardless of whether or not the situation is realistic for the given circumstances, thus the baseline energy consumption for a resting waking mind should not change. Second, wave functions as described above have little to nothing to do with energy consumption in the relaxed waking mind. Third, wave functions may have something to do with consciousness and energy consumption, but it is unclear to how and the suggested experiment does not help to determine this functionality. Regardless the new energy consumption evidence does seem to suggest a role for quantum effects in consciousness and should be explored further.

Counteracting Possible Negative Effects of Anesthesia

For a number of years, it was thought that a mind at rest utilized less energy than a mind that was focused on a particular task or one that was multi-tasking. Such a thought seemed reasonable due to its apparent intuitiveness. However, this presumption does not appear to be correct. Although the experiments are only preliminary, neuronal imaging has provided evidence that there is a persistent level of activity when the conscious mind is not engaged in some task. In fact this activity appears to be 20 times greater vs. when the mind is focused. Note that this neurological behavior is only applicable during periods of rest or anesthesia, not during periods of sleep.

A future blog post will discuss possible reasons behind this flood of activity during periods of rest, but one interesting issue that arises from this new energy distribution in the brain is how it affects preparation for surgery. Previously this blog discussed possible rationalities behind why anesthesia may cause brain damage in young children and the elderly. Here

http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2010/01/digging-into-anesthesia-and-potential.html

Could additional oxidative stress brought on by a surplus demand of energy due to the administration of anesthesia for an extend period of time (hours due to typically surgical length) be the primary reason for brain damage? If yes, then could a meal high in complex sugars (12-24 hours before surgery) reduce the probability of brain damage through the reduction of oxidative stress? The brain has its own specific source of glycogen, which has a unique slow release property. A simple yet special pre-surgical preparation diet for infants and young children may be a useful deterrent to anesthesia-derived brain damage. Bring on the mouse studies.

Why lay the blame on scientists?

For a considerable period of time there has been continuous criticism of scientists, most notably climate scientists, by environmentalists and others on the “Left” wing of the political spectrum regarding their inability to properly communicate the perils of climate change. Unfortunately these critics have diluted themselves into believing that simply changing the semantics of the argument can significantly sway public opinion. This belief stems from the conclusion that the principle reason the public is not 90-95% in favor of new policy that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a lack of scientific understanding in both the realities and dangers of climate change. It is highly unlikely that such a contention is true because a number of easily understood and straightforward explanations of these two very issues embodying climate change are available from a number of online sources. In fact even this blog has produced such a document at the following link.

http://bastionofreason.blogspot.com/2010/02/hypothetical-q-with-climate-rookie.html

So if the documentation that meets the desires of these critics is available, why are they continuing to complain about a lack of scientific messaging from scientists? The principle reason for the criticism is that these critics are frustrated by the quantity of correct information versus misinformation. Such frustration can definitely be understood because both right wing bloggers and the mainstream media either go out of their way to artificially hype/lie about information that does not support human-driven climate change or offer equal weight to an issue that does not deserve such consideration.

However, to blame poor communication by climate scientists as reason for this environment is silly. Changing the message by using clever analogies and simple plainspoken language is not going to significantly change the general environment perpetrated by the right wing bloggers and the “mainstream” media. The problem is that the public is accepting that there are two reasonable and logical opposing sides to the issue of climate change where there are not. Basically a majority of the communication mediums have elected to present the options of 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 56 as a viable topic for debate. Offering a simpler, hopefully more easily understandable, analysis could help, but as long as another explanation exists the public will have to measure and judge the validity of each argument.

Regardless of how simple the pro human-driven climate change argument is presented it will still involve scientific explanation, either in the form of analogy or straight science, thus it will require thought to understand. This thought requirement involves a level of understanding and effort which is unfortunate when the opposing argument against human-driven climate change is ‘prove it beyond any doubt’ instead of ‘a reasonable or scientific doubt’. Thus according to the opposition, the pro human-driven climate change movement must prove that human-driven climate change is a scientific certainty. Interestingly enough such a contention can be demonstrated through reasoning that the Greenhouse Effect is scientific fact and a vast majority of greenhouse molecules that have been added to the atmosphere in the last 200 years are human derived. Unfortunately such an argument is heavily based in science something most do not want to wade through. Compound this opposing argument with the fact that major lifestyle changes at significant philosophical and short-term economical cost will be required when accepting and combating human-driven climate change and one sees why human-driven climate change deniers have made so much headway at stemming positive steps to combat climate change.

Therefore, it may be wise to invest in a different strategy than try to win the debate by simplifying an argument to battle against an argument that is as simple as it gets. The two most important questions to ask an individual during a debate:

1. Why do you believe x?
2. What prevents you from believing y?

The primary goal of the first question is to engage the individual and discover what attributes drive the belief of an individual. For example is the individual heavily influenced by upbringing, educational environment, logic, etc? Once this information is acquired arguments can be better generated to attack flaws in the belief system leading to a higher probability of success in expelling incorrect beliefs.

The second question is standard scientific analysis; find out what the individual believes are the flaws of a presented argument; if the individual cites flaws that are incorrect and the individual in question cannot accept these ‘believed’ flaws as correct then there is no need to continue the conversation because the individual is unwilling to change his/her beliefs. Such is another flaw in the thinking of those that wish for scientists to simplify their explanations of human-driven climate change, they believe that everyone will be receptive to the argument when both sides are stripped down to nothing but logic and facts, such is not the case.

Note that it is important to try to impress upon an individual the detriments of being incorrect and how it would negatively affect his/her life. Unfortunately the focus of this influence needs to be in the short-term if possible due to the human psychological characteristic of instant gratification and causality (the philosophy of ‘I’ll be dead so who cares what happens that far into the future’). For example one common argument made by environmentalists is explaining the ease and low cost of converting to a less fossil fuel dependent energy environment. Unfortunately this argument is not as powerful as it should be because even if switching involves lower cost than previously anticipated, it still costs money and if the rational for this switch is not properly expressed then any cost will be considered wasted.

Overall the problem of less than appropriate support for climate change is not predicated by over-complicated scientific communication. Sure, a wider range of depth in explanation would be a useful tool, but it should be quite apparent that treating the issue of human-driven climate change as a debate and trying to ‘out-argue’ the other side is the wrong strategy because the other side does not have a real argument. Instead of using a ‘fact shotgun’ approach to convince people, perhaps the better strategy is to ask what information people need to see to be convinced of the validity of human-driven climate change. Provide the necessary information to those that provide reasonable requests and no longer be concerned with those that do not. Using this strategy more precise effort can be applied to those that can be convinced and one can avoid wasting effort on those that cannot or do not want to be convinced.

The Detriment of First Impressions

In general society humans seem to favor instant categorization. Perhaps such a mindset is brought on through evolution and survival instincts. First impressions allow humans to instantly categorize a new person which gives them a better handle on how to interact with them and what value they may have. The problem is that once this categorization occurs people resist changing it even if they are faced with behavior or evidence that contradicts that initial interpretation. The reason for this persistence is two fold. First, it is natural that most humans resist the very notion that their opinions could be wrong invoking many psychological defenses to convince themselves that they are right regardless of the evidence or facts. Second, it takes work to change your first opinion, researching why the initial opinion is wrong and coming to a new more accurate conclusion that will replace the old incorrect conclusion.

However, hard work and the potential for being wrong do not permanently deter people, so why does it appear to be more difficult for people to overcome first impressions made in social interaction? One reason stems back to basic labeling theory where if enough people characterize a person in a certain way, weaker people begin to apply that characteristic regardless of whether or not it is true. Thus, the incorrect even idiotic assumption could become true through irrational and stubborn behavior by those who make the idiotic assumption. Unfortunately this happens more often than it should.

A second reason is that rarely do visible and calculated consequences exist for these improper assumptions. If someone mischaracterizes an individual as having a certain weakness when they do not that first individual is rarely disciplined for that error. Without consequences for incorrect assumptions or misconstrued analysis, individuals are unlikely to change their opinions or the methodology that lead to the error. Basically without genuine and significant consequences personal pride becomes the only motivating factor driving individuals to correct mistaken opinions.

Unfortunately even if there are consequences most of the time they are difficult to identify. For example suppose an individual characterizes a stockbroker candidate incorrectly due to an erroneous assumption, which leads to the belief that he/she does not have the skills to succeed at higher risk trading. In reality if given the opportunity this individual would have high levels of success and generate large amounts of money. However, these gains are difficult to identify as a detriment because they only materialize if the individual is given the opportunity to succeed. If the individual is not given the opportunity the company does not lose any money they already have, they just lose money that they would receive in the future. Without that knowledge, and why would they have it because they already characterize the individual has not having the necessary skill set to produce success, it would be difficult to realize the potential of the lost revenue and that loss as a consequence of the initial incorrect assumption.

A third reason people do not change first impressions easily was alluded to above in that most of the time the individual who is mischaracterized is never given an opportunity to prove this erroneous assumption wrong. One of the reasons no opportunity is afforded to these individuals ties back to simple arrogance. The initial evaluator is naturally going to believe their initial impression correct and any test to prove otherwise would be at best a waste of time and at worst a personal insult and waste of company money. In these situations it is up to someone of a higher rank than the initial evaluator to give the individual an opportunity to displace errors.

With all that has been said, it would be inappropriate to assume that all first impressions are incorrect. The point of this issue is to suggest that first impressions are not infallible and thus should not possess some ‘magical’ additional weight when evaluating an individual’s skill set or the prospects of a social or professional relationship with that individual. Also rectifying evaluation errors is a two way street. The evaluator has to be open to changing his/her opinion in the face of new conflicting evidence, but the individual being evaluated has to honestly assess his/her own abilities and if he/she feels that a characterization is unfair a protest must be lobbied against that characterization. The protest is the key element to initiating any correction because if the individual in question does not believe that the evaluation is in error then there is no reason to change it.

Some may argue that the first impression may be in error even if the individual does not realize it. He/she may have the skills required or a different temperament, but simply has never had to utilize those skills, etc. Unfortunately such an argument does not seem to hold much merit because if an individual does not have a skill or any experience with said skill how is it unfair of the first evaluator to come to the conclusion that the individual lacks that skill? It is not the job of the evaluator, be it for a job interview, performance review or just meeting someone for the first time, to test the individual on all relevant elements and skills to determine if the individual can perform a given skill even if they have no history of being able to do so.

In the end first impressions should just be a microcosm of general opinion and thought where individuals take personal initiative to make sure their opinions are correct. Unfortunately first impressions seem to move beyond similarities with other more empirically derived opinions. Until we can overcome the weighed ego and emotional attachments that come with retaining our first impressions, humans will never be able to maximize their abilities as individuals or a society.

A New Strategy for Immigration Reform?

Although immigration has always been an issue, it usually finds its place on the back burner of politics until a particular incident pushes it to the front burner where it explodes with vitriol and emotion. The passage of the new Arizona immigration law has accomplished exactly that. The cry of racism and unconstitutionality fill the air in Arizona not necessarily because of the language of the bill, but because of how people believe that language will be applied. Most of the cries pertain to the potential of racial profiling against those of the Latino community. Sadly the first thing people need to understand is that the new Arizona law may seem like it is targeting those of a Latino background because it needs to. A vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country are Latino. It is simple fact. A problem is that most people are missing the simple reality that most of the time authorities rely on secondary crime to enforce illegal immigration laws (once the individual successfully enters the country illegally). Being an illegal immigrant is a passive violation of the law. However, it is still a violation of the law despite a number of people, especially Latinos in a state of blind ethnic pride, seemingly omitting this simple fact from the issue of immigration.

Therefore because just being an illegal immigrant is a passive crime this can lead people to excuse it as something that is not important, especially when the popular phrase ‘they are just doing it to make a better life for them and/or their family’ is trotted out. In reality an illegal immigrant can be equated to an embezzler. Illegal immigrants are frequent users of social services, yet do not pay taxes or any other form of reimbursement for those services, thus any value they receive from these social services is stolen. Illegal immigrants are thieves and legitimate criminals regardless of the passive nature of their crimes. Anyone that rejects this premise is wrong. Not surprisingly the embezzler analogy works also in relation to social feeling. Society rarely views embezzlement as a serious crime and generally treats those convicted of it with kid gloves.

The chief problem with the enforcement of pro-active immigration laws is that as long as the illegal immigrant remains passive in his/her violation of the law (not acting illegally beyond being an illegal immigrant) it is very difficult for law enforcement to detain these individuals outside of a probable cause raid on a place of employment. Large-scale raids against employers is accomplished through fact gathering and information processing which makes acquiring the necessary probable cause doable without undue violations to the 4th, 5th or 14th Amendments. However, the ability to generate a probable cause argument against individuals that are not committing crimes or acting in a highly suspicious manner (something which has a debatable definition) is quite difficult without violating one of the aforementioned Amendments.

This issue is why the new Arizona state law regarding illegal immigration has drawn so much controversy. It is almost impossible, if not impossible, to justify the potential violation of rights of a legal resident or citizen in the name of finding potential criminals. Unfortunately as mentioned, it is equally difficult to enforce illegal immigration laws on an individual-by-individual basis without creating large flexibility in the probable cause requirement. Clearly an impasse exists when the goal is to remove illegal immigrants from the country through direct means of identification without violating the rights of those that are here legally or are citizens. Overall if the United States is to remain true to its origin, individual rights must take precedence. Thus it may be simpler to develop an alternative measure of enforcement.

One possible way around this issue may be to limit the opportunities that illegal immigrants have to commit crimes, including embezzlement, rather than try to directly identify them. It would be difficult to apply such restrictive measures to all aspects of social services and infrastructure, but the two most costly points of service can be limited, healthcare and education. Basically one method to combat illegal immigration would require individuals to show proof of citizenship for enrollment in any educational institution at any level or to receive any form of medical care. Clearly the education limitations are appropriate as an all-encompassing standard; if you are not a citizen, legal resident or have the appropriate visa you cannot officially attend any school within the United States. However, blanket restrictions on healthcare provide points of debate. Note for future reference when mention is made of citizenship it references both citizens and legal residents or those holding appropriate visas.

There are two elements of debate within the concept of citizenship-required healthcare. First, if the illegal immigrant is somehow able to purchase private health insurance and fund the premiums, co-pay/deductibles, etc. from his/her own pocket legally then the illegal immigrant is not embezzling with regards to healthcare. One could then argue that illegal immigrants with private insurance could satisfy the requirement of paying for the social service, thus they should be allowed medical care.

Second, an immediate emergency that places eminent risk of death against the individual. Clearly if an individual arrives for medical treatment of a condition that if not treated will result in his/her death within a 24 hr period there are moral obligations for a medical institution to treat that person. However, under this new policy it could also be considered fair that if the individual cannot prove citizenship then once that person is physically able he/she will be immediately deported or imprisoned. Another immediate emergency issue would be that of the public health threat. If an individual carries a bacterial or viral infection that could spread and infect others that individual should be afforded treatment regardless of citizenship. After treatment this individual would also share the above consequence if proof of citizenship cannot be provided.

Now one could argue that the threat of deportation would prevent individuals from coming into the emergency room to receive treatment. The strength of this argument is largely dependent on the general line of thought regarding the ability of self-recognition of emergency conditions. Can an individual tell when they are really sick versus if they just have a head cold? If they can then the above policy is legitimate because only a crazy person would prefer death to deportation. However it is rational to conclude that this is not the case. Most people do not have the requisite intelligence or experience to effectively differentiate between benign annoyances and serious detrimental afflictions. The inability of the average person to differentiate between the different distinctions of illness could create a problem with the above policy.

Originally the mindset of the above policy anticipated the behavior of the typical illegal immigrant to accept deportation over death for serious conditions including viral or bacterial infections, but to avoid licensed medical care for less serious conditions. However, such a mindset fails if the individual cannot accurately differentiate between the two with a significant level of precision. Therefore, one of two possibilities will arise: the individual seeking treatment for any condition with a sufficient level of seriousness or the individual not seeking treatment for any condition favoring the rationality that the odds favor a less serious condition every time. Initially without any empirical evidence it is difficult to conclude which possibility would be selected more often. Without firm predictability regarding this issue it may be too dangerous to conduct such a policy with the threat of illegal immigrants foregoing critical medical treatments for conditions that may result in a public health threat.

One possibility to correct the above problem is to allow physicians to conduct initial diagnostic evaluations to determine what may be afflicting the individual and its seriousness. If the condition is not serious enough to fall into one of the two above exceptions, then the individual would be required to prove citizenship before treatment could commence. If the individual declines to provide such proof then the individual could leave without treatment, but without consequence of deportation. Some may argue that restriction of medical attention/care in such a way is immoral. On the contrary a country has no moral or social obligation to provide non-emergency medical treatment to a non-citizen.

Another concern that may arise from this policy is the development of black market medical treatment for illegal immigrants. It is typical when something, a service or item, is illegal but money can be made from it for some to attempt to provide that service or item. One could fear that the development of black market medical services may further endanger public health due to shoddy treatments and improper diagnosis. However, the ability of these black market institutions to function successfully is questionable. Running a profitable medical practice without deep private coffers, a privately insured clientele or the support of the government is rather difficult because of the high cost of medical supplies and testing equipment. Most illegal immigrants do not make large amounts of money and thus could not afford to pay the prices that these black market medical institutions would require to make a profit. Without reasonable expectation of profit few individuals will attempt to set up any type of business whether it is legal or not. Some may still attempt to establish black market medical practices, but they will generally be isolated, not part of an underground network, which will further increase supply prices making profit prospects even less attractive.

An additional issue that must be addressed with respect to immigration reform, regardless of whether or not the idea presented above is applied, is improved throughput of legalization procedures. One of the reasons that so many attempt to enter the country illegally vs. legally is the long and sometimes capricious methodology behind gaining legal residency or a visa. Note that improvement of legalization methods cannot standalone in the field of immigration reform. Although in the end the idea presented above may not be viewed as suitable, greater penalties must be placed against illegal immigrants to reduce the attractiveness of entering and remaining in the country illegally. The reason these penalties must exist is demonstrated by the general failure of work visa programs for unskilled labor. Their lack of success comes from the less regimented lifestyle afforded to the illegal immigrant over the work visa individual. Basically the illegal immigrant has more freedom and even opportunities than the work visa individual. This opportunity and freedom must be further restricted or similar work visa programs, which some believe to be a critical component to immigration reform, will face similar failure.

The issue of what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here is rather easy. Either they leave and apply for legal entry through the proper channels or live with whatever new restrictions are applied. The ethnic national cry of ‘look at all illegal immigrant A has built here, it would be wrong to force him/her to leave and come back just to become a legal resident, thus they need a path to citizenship that does not required leaving…’ promotes an illogical and immoral message. Such a policy can be regarded as amnesty and any form of amnesty would be akin to giving individuals a reward for their willing, conscious and continual violation of the law. Anything illegal immigrant A ‘built’ was on false pretenses and there exists no moral obligation to allow him/her to keep it. In fact the moral obligation lies with not granting amnesty due to a matter of fairness. What about those individuals that had the opportunity to come to the United States illegally, yet refrained from doing so because it was illegal? These are the individuals that deserve a place at the front of the ‘proverbial’ citizenship line not those that took little to no consideration of the law for their own personal gain. Overall it is rather sad that there is a large contingency of individuals that oppose any level of immigration reform, which does not placate to illegal immigrants. Maybe the wheels of immigration reform would accelerate if these individuals tried to come up with solutions that did not begin with the letter A.