There is a book titled The Story of B by Daniel Quinn that discusses the problem of over-population here on Earth. It is a fantastic book with some very thought-provoking notions about the social and religious implications of agricultural development. In it, Quinn begins with the Malthusian theory that, as food supplies increase arithmetically, the tendency of populations is to increase geometrically, and, thus, that there is a limit to the number of people that our planet's food supply can support. There are estimates that the world's population surpassed seven billion on October 31, 2011, having doubled in size since the mid-20th century. These figures are staggering in both size, and rapidity, and the sustainability of this growth should be addressed and discussed.
Quinn writes that given the relatively small period of time that humans have inhabited the planet, population growth has spun out of control in the last century and searches for the reasons behind the swell. The main concept he brings up is the theory that since mankind drifted away from hunting and gathering as a means of sustenance and towards a more complex form of agriculture 8,000 years ago, the amount of food necessary to sustain a growing population has been abundant and has therefore enabled such a population boom. This led to a division of labor that had not previously existed. According to Quinn, this is not necessarily a good thing.
As humans' ability to produce food becomes more efficient, and the control of the food supply becomes consolidated to fewer and fewer producers, the impact of disasters such as floods, droughts, and other crop failures becomes more exacerbated. A corollary of this is that as the knowledge of food production becomes more concentrated (U.S. agricultural exports hit $115 billion in 2008), so does the power to control populations by increasing or decreasing the food supply. This idea of 'totalitarian agriculture' is a concept Quinn explores in depth in the book and links to the biblical story of the Garden of Eden.
In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge and are banned from the garden for doing so. Quinn sees this as an allegory for man's invention of agriculture and domestication of animals. With this 'knowledge', mankind now has the ability to control the food supply, and the producers are given the power to sustain or starve, knowledge that can be seen by some as god-like. A glaring example of this is the U.S. trade embargo with Cuba. The issues the United States takes with Cuba's politics has led to severe human rights implications related to malnutrition and disease. Though the knowledge of good and evil is not explicitly stated in Genesis, the relation that Quinn draws from this knowledge to the policy of today's food producers is obvious - that as the world's population continues to grow exponentially with poverty and famine at alarmingly high levels, man's original sin was attempting to harness this power of life.
Looking forward to the next 50 years, when analysts estimate the global population to reach nine billion, a moral question to consider is how to avert catastrophe as we approach the Malthusian limit. Though we have the technology to feed the people of the world, the issue for debate should be how to do it sustainably, humanely, and responsibly.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Class Warfare: You asked for it, you got it.
It's been a while since I last posted mainly because I've been trying to sort out some kind of coherence in what is happening with the economy, and what kind of impact the Occupy Wall St. movement may have, if it all. I think I've pieced together some of the most relevant bits here for you. Please feel free to leave comments and add to the discussion.
On September 6th, President Obama announced his jobs bill to both chambers of congress, asking for political solidarity for the sake of the country's economy. This was long overdue, as no net jobs were created in August and the unemployment rate held fast at just over 9%. Despite the call for bipartisan cooperation, Republicans were quick to accuse the president of waging class warfare. Though I would hardly call the jobs bill 'class warfare', it seems to have struck a chord with a class of people just aching to get their opinion heard. Within a week, a group of protesters organized by the anti-consumerism group Adbusters had camped out in Zuccotti Park, about three blocks away from the New York Stock Exchange and begun demonstrating against social inequality.
The group, calling themselves the Occupy Wall St. movement, has picketed daily since September 17th with signs that accuse the top 1% of income earners in America of, among other things, the economic disenfranchisement of the other 99%. Though economic inequality is the chief issue surrounding the protests, other issues such as green energy and reproductive rights for women are also addressed.
The broad scope of the topics addressed, the lack of specific demands from the protesters, and its leaderless organizational structure have led to criticism by those on the right. Rep. Eric Cantor calls the protestors a "growing mob" while former Gov. Mitt Romney calls the movement "dangerous class warfare". This isn't surprising given that the Republican party has traditionally been sympathetic to business interests. What is surprising, however, is that momentum the movement has created, despite not having much to offer in the way of specific policy demands.
The gist of the message seems to have gotten through, though. Former Rep. Alan Grayson sums up the demands pretty succinctly on Real Time with Bill Maher:
As the protests spread to other cities, labor groups and teachers' unions, even Ben & Jerry's among others, have thrown their support behind the protesters. I personally like the idea of this protest movement. At first I thought it seemed a little misdirected, picketing an area that has no direct authority over fiscal economic policy decisions. But wait, that's the whole point. Wall St. bankers DO have a direct effect on the policy of Washington, and that is what the movement is all about.
On September 6th, President Obama announced his jobs bill to both chambers of congress, asking for political solidarity for the sake of the country's economy. This was long overdue, as no net jobs were created in August and the unemployment rate held fast at just over 9%. Despite the call for bipartisan cooperation, Republicans were quick to accuse the president of waging class warfare. Though I would hardly call the jobs bill 'class warfare', it seems to have struck a chord with a class of people just aching to get their opinion heard. Within a week, a group of protesters organized by the anti-consumerism group Adbusters had camped out in Zuccotti Park, about three blocks away from the New York Stock Exchange and begun demonstrating against social inequality.
The group, calling themselves the Occupy Wall St. movement, has picketed daily since September 17th with signs that accuse the top 1% of income earners in America of, among other things, the economic disenfranchisement of the other 99%. Though economic inequality is the chief issue surrounding the protests, other issues such as green energy and reproductive rights for women are also addressed.
The broad scope of the topics addressed, the lack of specific demands from the protesters, and its leaderless organizational structure have led to criticism by those on the right. Rep. Eric Cantor calls the protestors a "growing mob" while former Gov. Mitt Romney calls the movement "dangerous class warfare". This isn't surprising given that the Republican party has traditionally been sympathetic to business interests. What is surprising, however, is that momentum the movement has created, despite not having much to offer in the way of specific policy demands.
The gist of the message seems to have gotten through, though. Former Rep. Alan Grayson sums up the demands pretty succinctly on Real Time with Bill Maher:
As the protests spread to other cities, labor groups and teachers' unions, even Ben & Jerry's among others, have thrown their support behind the protesters. I personally like the idea of this protest movement. At first I thought it seemed a little misdirected, picketing an area that has no direct authority over fiscal economic policy decisions. But wait, that's the whole point. Wall St. bankers DO have a direct effect on the policy of Washington, and that is what the movement is all about.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Remembering 9/11: Crying and Cringing
Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Three thousand people lost their lives that day, and over eight thousand civilians and service members have died overseas in the wars that followed. My hat is off to the brave men and women that serve our country in some of the most dangerous places in the world, especially knowing that they are defending the very liberty that allows me to write so freely about such an important issue.
However, my hat is NOT off to our political leaders a decade ago. When we finally found Osama bin Laden this year, the Pakistani government took flak for, at best, having been negligent enough in their security duties to let bin Laden set up camp in their own back yard, or, at worst, having an active role in keeping him hidden. Similarly, I accuse the Bush administration for being, at best, ignorant enough of the intelligence provided to let such a tragedy occur or, at worst, turning a blind eye to the point of complicity in the events that took place. I'm leaning towards that latter based on the previous stated goals of the architects of the Iraq war.
In 1998, members of the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative think tank, which included the future Bush administration secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense, ambassador to the United Nations, and deputy secretary of state, wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using a "full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts." On pages 50-51 of a study that was released by the same group exactly a year before the attacks on September 11th emphasizes that "creating tomorrow's dominant force" is a transformation that will be a slow process "absent some catalyzing and catastrophic event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Given that the stated aims of the group, whose membership also includes former vice-presidents Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle and former governor Jeb Bush, are to "increase defense spending significantly" and "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values", it comes as no surprise that after the most significant homeland attack against the U.S. since Pearl Harbor, defense spending soared and the administration made a case to invade Iraq.
This all could be a coincidence, but logically, it's hard for me to believe that a hawkish conservative group whose members occupied seats in the Pentagon, the White House, the United Nations, and the Bush family dinner table would let an opportunity to accomplish so many of their violent goals slip by just because some innocent American lives may be lost. I find it despicable not just because of the aggressive methods that allows this end to justify the means, but also because the curtailing of civil liberties and the consolidation of the media that took place after 9/11 have pushed any voices of dissent so far outside the mainstream that they are often mistaken as unpatriotic.
PS - I love you America. I won't give up on you if you won't give up on me.
However, my hat is NOT off to our political leaders a decade ago. When we finally found Osama bin Laden this year, the Pakistani government took flak for, at best, having been negligent enough in their security duties to let bin Laden set up camp in their own back yard, or, at worst, having an active role in keeping him hidden. Similarly, I accuse the Bush administration for being, at best, ignorant enough of the intelligence provided to let such a tragedy occur or, at worst, turning a blind eye to the point of complicity in the events that took place. I'm leaning towards that latter based on the previous stated goals of the architects of the Iraq war.
In 1998, members of the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative think tank, which included the future Bush administration secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense, ambassador to the United Nations, and deputy secretary of state, wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using a "full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts." On pages 50-51 of a study that was released by the same group exactly a year before the attacks on September 11th emphasizes that "creating tomorrow's dominant force" is a transformation that will be a slow process "absent some catalyzing and catastrophic event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Given that the stated aims of the group, whose membership also includes former vice-presidents Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle and former governor Jeb Bush, are to "increase defense spending significantly" and "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values", it comes as no surprise that after the most significant homeland attack against the U.S. since Pearl Harbor, defense spending soared and the administration made a case to invade Iraq.
This all could be a coincidence, but logically, it's hard for me to believe that a hawkish conservative group whose members occupied seats in the Pentagon, the White House, the United Nations, and the Bush family dinner table would let an opportunity to accomplish so many of their violent goals slip by just because some innocent American lives may be lost. I find it despicable not just because of the aggressive methods that allows this end to justify the means, but also because the curtailing of civil liberties and the consolidation of the media that took place after 9/11 have pushed any voices of dissent so far outside the mainstream that they are often mistaken as unpatriotic.
PS - I love you America. I won't give up on you if you won't give up on me.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Collapse of the Western World's Economic System... Why Not?
"A lot of [House Republicans] believe 'enough chaos' would make opponents yield"
- House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
on his colleagues in the House of Representatives.
I remember when I was learning to drive, my dad would give me advice regarding not getting into accidents. Every so often I would say, 'Yeah, but wouldn't it be the other person's fault in that instance?' To which his response would be 'You're right, but would you total your car on principle?'
Good point.
It raises another question, though. What if you were trying to total your car? Without taking the metaphor too far, I feel like the Tea Party Republicans want the economy destroyed, not just to push some of their ideology to the legislative limit, but because of some inane theory that economic collapse will reflect badly on the president, not them, and that would be a good thing. If the timing of this had not been so terrible, I would dismiss this brinkmanship as politics as usual. But as things degenerate in the Eurozone as well, it looks like a double-dip recession is all but guaranteed.
While Mr. Bernanke contemplates another round of quantitative easing, the 'chaos' has spread across an ocean. Greece, the original of the PIGS nations (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) now seeks a second bailout as the debt crisis has expanded to include Italy. The weak economies of the Eurozone are now pushing for a Euro bond, while the strong economies (notably France and Germany) hesitate, as such an issuance may affect their credit ratings. Finland asking for Grecian collateral to limit their exposure to bad debt has sparked an unfriendly debate among the other strong economies.
If banks in Europe are tight on credit, it will become more expensive to borrow money here in the states, despite whether or not the Fed decides to proceed with another round of quantitative easing. However, if QE3 does go through, there is no guarantee that the banks will be any more liberal about loaning money as the model of quantitative easing suggests they should. If companies are left without access to credit, then growth, unemployment, and tax revenue will stagnate, and we will begin the cycle anew.
- House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
on his colleagues in the House of Representatives.
I remember when I was learning to drive, my dad would give me advice regarding not getting into accidents. Every so often I would say, 'Yeah, but wouldn't it be the other person's fault in that instance?' To which his response would be 'You're right, but would you total your car on principle?'
Good point.
It raises another question, though. What if you were trying to total your car? Without taking the metaphor too far, I feel like the Tea Party Republicans want the economy destroyed, not just to push some of their ideology to the legislative limit, but because of some inane theory that economic collapse will reflect badly on the president, not them, and that would be a good thing. If the timing of this had not been so terrible, I would dismiss this brinkmanship as politics as usual. But as things degenerate in the Eurozone as well, it looks like a double-dip recession is all but guaranteed.
While Mr. Bernanke contemplates another round of quantitative easing, the 'chaos' has spread across an ocean. Greece, the original of the PIGS nations (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) now seeks a second bailout as the debt crisis has expanded to include Italy. The weak economies of the Eurozone are now pushing for a Euro bond, while the strong economies (notably France and Germany) hesitate, as such an issuance may affect their credit ratings. Finland asking for Grecian collateral to limit their exposure to bad debt has sparked an unfriendly debate among the other strong economies.
If banks in Europe are tight on credit, it will become more expensive to borrow money here in the states, despite whether or not the Fed decides to proceed with another round of quantitative easing. However, if QE3 does go through, there is no guarantee that the banks will be any more liberal about loaning money as the model of quantitative easing suggests they should. If companies are left without access to credit, then growth, unemployment, and tax revenue will stagnate, and we will begin the cycle anew.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Welcome my son, to the machine
And by 'machine' I mean my new blog. The old one was a tad directionless, and, thus, a little hard for inspiration to strike. This one I intend to be dedicated to current events, which may seem to be a little vague as well, but the current state of things is something of which I try to keep apprised. The blog postings from here on out will be commentary about what is happening in the business world, political arena, society, and contemporary culture. The slant will be to the left (mostly) for social issues and pop culture, and right (mostly) for economic and political issues. The controversial points that are bound to come up will be the most fun to discuss.
For instance, as a resident of Texas, I feel the political landscape has been enhanced by the recent addition of our governor, Rick Perry, to the crowd of republican primary candidates. My sentiment is that though I feel Mr. Perry to be rather ignorant about many things including healthcare and education, I am inclined to think he is a responsible choice for president in 2012. This is based on his ability to balance a budget and stimulate job growth. Unless there is a drastic change, these will be the two most important issues in the upcoming presidential election.
President Obama, on the other hand, has an abysmal record of job creation and controlling a ballooning deficit. Though I feel that a comprehensive healthcare system is important (as a developed country, the lack of such a system is a bit of an embarrassment), the amount of political capital that Mr. Obama used to push that item on his agenda forward was unjustified.
For the past three years, the issue that should have been the most important for the president's policy makers has been the economy. That was part of the reason voters chose Mr. Obama over Mr. Mccain in 2008, and here we are in 2011 with the same problems that existed for the president during his last election. If the economy regains some momentum and unemployment drops in the next 15 months, however, we will see a much different general election.
For instance, as a resident of Texas, I feel the political landscape has been enhanced by the recent addition of our governor, Rick Perry, to the crowd of republican primary candidates. My sentiment is that though I feel Mr. Perry to be rather ignorant about many things including healthcare and education, I am inclined to think he is a responsible choice for president in 2012. This is based on his ability to balance a budget and stimulate job growth. Unless there is a drastic change, these will be the two most important issues in the upcoming presidential election.
President Obama, on the other hand, has an abysmal record of job creation and controlling a ballooning deficit. Though I feel that a comprehensive healthcare system is important (as a developed country, the lack of such a system is a bit of an embarrassment), the amount of political capital that Mr. Obama used to push that item on his agenda forward was unjustified.
For the past three years, the issue that should have been the most important for the president's policy makers has been the economy. That was part of the reason voters chose Mr. Obama over Mr. Mccain in 2008, and here we are in 2011 with the same problems that existed for the president during his last election. If the economy regains some momentum and unemployment drops in the next 15 months, however, we will see a much different general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)