the growing problem: the dream is alive
I've drunken from the kool-aid --at least that is what I imagine my detractors would say. Since April when I made a very conscious, very deliberate choice to become sober (inspired, of course, by a psychotic episode) I have been a member of AA. I've noticed that lately, I have definitely "bought" the ideas that: there IS a higher power (which for many is embodied in the Judeo-Christian tradition) and that nothing ever happens by "accident." I know that writing this very admission makes me weak and un-reliable in the hands of many. If my voice is ever heard, however, I hope that this entry in particular will stand as a testament to the power of ideas.
Pretentious platitudes aside, I was very inspired today, by an accident. I actually decided that today, rather than simply deleting all the news emails and what not that I get, I would read some of them, at least. I came across this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Tropic-Chaos-Climate-Geography-Violence/dp/1568586000
The ideas arn't particularly new. After all, anyone with any sense of history and proportion knows that the "modern" environmentalism movement in the US and the Western World emerged from the rubble of World War II, reaching a sort of peak in the late 1960s early 1970s with, in the creation of the US, the EPA and, of course, the beginning of Earth Day. Nothing there is particularly new, except perhaps that the figures have been updated to see the appallingly few things that have been done to ensure the world will go on surviving.
For me, at least, it rings with kind of a cruel irony. I am reminded of reading titles and books and figures and prognostications about the "future of the Soviet Union" the Soviet Union in "the 1990s" or "in the 21st century." As a good historian will point out, no one, not even in 1978-1981 (when Reagan came to Power, the new Pope was Polish, and the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan) or in 1985 (when Gorbachev came to power) truly thought the Soviet Union would be gone within the next 5-10 years. Obviously, there were such visions of the future (hell, just look at Brzezinski's work in the 1960s) that the premier human experiment, meant to be the realisation of modern Utopian visions and human equality was not meant to last and would fail sooner or later.
As far as I'm concerned, my revisionist knowledge of the history of the USSR more or less would be that Stalin and the notion of "socialism in one country" more or less damned the experiment. As it was put to me by my professor of Russian History, the Soviet Union can really be viewed as follows: before Stalin, during Stalin, and after Stalin. For all the talk of Marx and Lenin, the real core of the Soviet Union was, in fact, not the forgotten man, not the peasant-turned-industrial worker, but Stalin. It is a testament to the human spirit and stubbornness that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. (Incidentally, not much ink (that I'm aware of) has been spilled on this fact, but Mexico, interestingly enough, endured a similar amount of time, in duration and oppression, as a one-party state, which only ended in 2000 with the election of Vicente Fox). But I digress.
This entry isn't about higher powers (though I began with that) or Alcohol or even alcoholism. And, despite the even bigger digression about Russia and the 20th century and what not, it isn't about Marxism or any of that, either. This entry is about humanity, and something that the experiments of the 20th century did not prepare us for. Also, this entry isn't really about environmentalism as a movement.
It is about an insidious fact that is coming to pass, once more: we live in an age of limits. Put more bluntly: there just ain't enough damn energy and food to feed everyone. Of course, there is a deeper problem than that, but let's focus on the food and energy issue.
There is an oil crisis. Again, not new, and anyone with a sense of time remembers the oil crises of the 1970s. In fact, that I word it as such is a continued testament to my pedantic nature and what not. But again, this entry isn't necessarily about me, either. I digress too often.
Coupled with the oil/energy crisis is also the water crisis. There is this book which I still think is a good introduction to the issue:
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Fate-Most-Precious-Resource/dp/0618127445 It was first released in 2001, and I probably read it in about 2005 or '06.
And, not only are we running out of energy to continue the life we lead, and not only are we running out of water, but we clearly don't have enough food. This, despite all the tons of food we waste; hundreds of pounds of food thrown out every day, in America that we throw out because it "expired" or "had a bit of mold" but had it been placed in front of some starving people, they'd have eaten it in all earnestness, baffled by the fact that anyone would throw out any food.
There is a reason for this, which again, I'll get back to. For right now, we are talking about the symptoms of the problems, such as energy, and food.
Where does the current crisis stem from? Well, for one, there is, in fact, climate change. I still don't get how any rational person will say that humans extracting so many resources from the planet and re-making the surface of it (by cutting down trees and erecting concrete monuments to our collective stupidity) wouldn't change the natural flow of the world. And, as silly as it may sound, there is, inevitably, the cosmic factor: the universe IS expanding, ever growing, ever changing. And, as anyone with a basic grasp of astronomy knows, the sun is a star, and, well, those burn out (or do they fade away? hey hey, my my). Of course, all that happens in such an unreal, slow-motion process that we, as human beings, as civilizations, could probably go on for a few hundred years, right?
Well, no. Look at all the dismal facts that are ever mounted and presented to us. Clearly, something is to be done. But, again, I wasn't hear to necessarily talk about climate change, though that does weigh heavy on my mind and is related.
I really want to talk about the food problem. Of course, climate change is a factor. If you look at the records, 2010 was one of the hottest years on record. Of the grain/wheat-producing nations, Russia burned and Australia flooded and thing wern't too great in the US, either. As a result, the price of wheat-based products have gone up almost 100 PERCENT in the past year. Again, any good shopper who actually looks at packages, sizes, prices per unit, etc, knows that even in the US (where it wasn't so bad) that we are still paying more for less. As Howard Beale put it in his famous speech "the dollar buys a nickles worth... banks are going bust.."
Yes, the banks have gone bust and clearly, capitalism --which is often rightly viewed as a system always trying to improve and out-produce itself-- is in danger once more. So, what do we do? Will an FDR emerge and borrow Socialist ideas? Hardly. With China, nominally, the "leader" of "left-leaning" causes like "communism" the dream is dead. It has been dead for a long, long time. How can we reform the world, politically, socially, economically, to be viable and allow us to survive?
A good agricultural plan would be a starting place.
It is my contention that the Farm bill of 2008 was George W. Bush's worst legacy. That's saying a lot, when you consider No Child Left Behind; the Patriot Act; and, of course, the Wars in the Middle East --wars, of course, which were meant to secure energy, so the United States (that 5% of the world's population) could go on consuming 25% of the world's resources. Yes, the Farm Bill was the worst piece of legislation of those 8 years. And, what makes matters worse, is that Congress was controlled (in both Chambers) by the alleged party of opposition, the Democrats. It wasn't as if passing a farm bill was new; that happens every 5 years or so.
So, what makes this particular farm bill so disastrous for humanity?
It continues our dependence on fossil fuels and turns America, almost exclusively, into a country beholden to growing corn. Ethanol is the way of the future, according to the farm bill.
So, what's the problem? Ethanol is NOT, long-term, a viable candidate to replace fossil fuels (which, again, the farm bill doesn't entirely want to get rid of, either). Corn/ethanol are being phased in. The problem with this is that not only is it not a good candidate to replace fossil fuels, it also has this problem: by resorting to mono-crop status, we are risking a new dust bowl. I read about all this in the pages of the Economist in 2006 and 2007. The literature pointing out these failures of the corn/ethanol boom has only grown. Thus, a Democratic Congress and a Republican president signed off on a deal --business as usual, really --to not really change much of anything. To continue subsidizing farmers and to work on creating a mono-crop culture. Why wasn't that given any attention?
Because, for whatever reason, we in the modern world don't seem to care or know much about agriculture. For me, at least, I bought into the myth that all our noble ancestors were good, smart farmers. Well, there's a lot of literature and evidence to the contrary on that. We as a species haven't gotten any real idea on how to grow food and support ourselves. No matter what we build and do, we are still beholden to the Earth. Of course, our actions certainly do affect how the Earth performs. In short, because of capitalism and the way humanity has evolved, we are ever growing for the sake of growth's sake --the ideology of the cancer cell. We are killing our planet.
I'm not really sure where all this leaves us. If Obama does serve a second term, he WILL get to pass his own farm bill. Of course, who knows if he'll have a Democratic, Republican, or (as is currently) a "split" Congress. On the other hand, Obama may not serve a second term, so it is also very possible that we will end up with a Republican president and a Republican congress.
Regardless of who is in power, the next farm bill won't rock the boat much. Ethanol will continue to reign supreme. This is because, since the last farm bill, we have seen that nuclear power is "unsafe" and not the way of the future. I don't happen to see any farm or wind or solar energy movements on the horizon, but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough. True, there is the case of Germany, which has shown that with less sunlight than some of the darkest places of the United States, that solar energy is viable. But who will care about that? Germany is attached to a sinking boat, the European Union. (Actually did just read an article talking about how the EU is becoming the Titanic). So, Germany may continue to pioneer energy examples, but no matter what people say, no one necessarily wants to follow in the footsteps of the country that did give us Hitler. I mean, when current and past administrations haven't been compared to Stalin (which is increasingly rare, it seems) there is the charge of Nazism. Thus, due to historical reasons and political-economic reasons, we're screwed.
The Third World is growing so fast, too. I hope it doesn't speak too much to my Euro-centrism (which is very real, very palpable) but it also seems that there are regions and countries going about industrialization the way the Western powers went about it, which is to say slow, inefficient, with little regard to quality of life for people or the environment. Until American hypocrisy stops (which no reigning superpower has ever been able to reduce) nothing is going to get done. Again, 5% using 25% of the resources? The pie can only be so big, and for better or for worse, it is being redistributed --and clearly not in the US's or the Western World's favour.
Now, I know. I've been trying to talk of humanity and how we need to work together, collectively. That last paragraph speaks of painful implications I don't want to go on about. I DO believe in a redistribution of wealth; I DO also believe in America (but not necessarily American exceptionalism) but I don't know how to reconcile those ideas. How does the love of humanity transcend the love of the nation-state?
I'm not sure. I've hinted at and laid out a lot of ideas. Some of them, naturally, are quite controversial. And, of course, because this a personal, public blog that usual details my own mind, none of this has been fact-checked or edited. I wrote it on the fly, even though these ideas have been with me for years.
I guess what I'm saying, is, until we in the United States can get good, honest leadership to direct us in a way which is conducive to real leadership for the world, not much is going to get done. Liberal democracy, one more, appears to be losing. This time, however, the winner is not the supposed socialism/communism of the Soviet Union, but the authoritarian capitalism of China et al.
Can Liberal democracy triumph? I sure hope so, and I am pretty sure that, like Socialism, the well is not dry. Of course, if we do continue on in this way, the well will be dry soon enough. That is the point of this entry.
We need sensible energy policies and a redistribution of resources and what not.
I said earlier that good energy policy, increasing food production, etc, are good ideas but they are, again, the symptom of greater problems. I'd like to think I hinted at such when I talked of growth and what not. How do we reconcile the problem of too many people and not enough food?
Well, it is simple enough. Margaret Sanger knew. The Social Darwnists and the eugenics movement had their ideas, too. (Incidentally, Ms Sanger, who helped create Planned Parenthood was herself a believer of eugenics). And the Chinese, with their infamous "one child" policy, knew, too. We need population control. Scary and shocking, I know. And, unlike the eugenicists, I don't think we should work on this, necessarily, by pushing for abortions or for tampering with DNA to ensure that we have a "pure race."
I have this theory, that I think there might be some literature about, but I'm not sure. Put simply (and bound to be distorted and used against me, should any of these ideas become serious or associated with me) but, Nazism did something good. Hitler's promotion of eugenics was enough to scare and frighten the rest of humanity for several decades. True, the collapse of the Third Reich did not immediately manifest itself in an end to racism or racial policies. The point is, the Cold War was focused on bettering humanity --all aspects of it. Human Rights became a cornerstone issue for the US and USSR, if not in practice, at least in name. That is a good start, I think. (There are also arguments, I've heard, that the Helsinki Accords of 1975 which promoted the idea of human rights helped to undermine the Soviet Union). From 1945-1991, be it the capitalist West or the "communist" East, the superpowers wanted to ensure rights for all.
Of course, the Right crept back to prominence in America. The eugenics movement never really died out, but with Hitler as its poster-boy, it definitely went underground. Well, look at the Republican party today. They don't want abortion; they don't want gays to marry. And, as much as it sounds like a conspiracy theory, it makes sense --if we promote abortion (and sex education, and contraception, etc) and homosexuality, the following could occur: population, at least in the US, would drop. In fact, again, look at where current growth (in terms of population) is: in the Third World. The Western powers are increasingly geriatric, even here in the US. If people make the choices to either not have kids or to give into their same sex-impulses, fewer kids. Thus, even if liberal democracy is better than authoritarian capitalism (which I do sincerely believe) it won't matter: the Chinese, among others, will dominate us population-wise.
Thus, though, technically, being "American" is not tied to any ethnicity, this also helps to shed light on the "immigration" issue and illegal aliens. Americans don't want to not be number one (even though that ended a long time ago); Americans don't want to speak Chinese or Arabic or Spanish. How do we continue then, aside from trying to remake the world in the American tradition through a jingoist, imperialist foreign policy?
Thus, there is that paradox for the Right-wing: how to promote people to have sex and thus reproduce, but at the same time tell them that sex is wrong and immoral? Wrap it up in the marriage issue. No sex until marriage, right? Well, get married, then! After all, marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. And, well, you stay together for the kids, right? Of course, that isn't really the case. The rates of premarital sex are high, and so is the divorce rate, but the use of contraception is not.
To me, this double-edgedness about sexuality --about how it is "bad" to do it without the guise of marriage, but "good" once you're in a "life-long" "committed" marriage -is very much so related to alcoholism. Being an alcoholic, I can tell you, that if I sit here and focus on not being able to drink, I'll probably drink more. In fact, if you set a beer in front of an alcoholic, and then leave them alone in the room with it, statistics show the person will probably drink it. (Why I single out alcohol, I don't know; similar studies hold true for food and for cigarettes and what not). The point is, not everyone, but certainly a large portion of the population, has impulse control. The failure rate of alcoholics anonymous points to that: only 2 percent succeed. But does that mean that all humanity is similarly programmed, similarly fated? No, not by a long shot.
I think I get it, however. I mean, when you're 17 and hormonal, the last thing you really want to be told is you can't give into those impulses, that you can't give into absolute pleasure. I mean, I get it: part of being human, of being alive, is the desire to fuck and have fun; on a subconscious level, that desire to fuck is linked to wanting to create a legacy --or at least a child to take care of you in old age. There is much talk and knowledge about parental (as opposed to simply "maternal") instincts.
But, the fact remains, that without a good sex education policy, without proper contraception and people learning to channel those sexual impulses into other activities, not much can be done.
For the foreseeable future, it appears that humanity, like that cancer cell, will go on growing. And as we do, the United States --still nominally number one --which lead by example. That example, unfortunately, is partly enshrined in our agricultural policies, which, as I said, are pretty much fated to fail.
None of this matters, however. No matter how cutting any of these insights may be, no matter how many books or facts I could have pointed to, and even if a seasoned academic were to put these ideas into some coherent whole, be it a book, a lecture, or an article or whatever, nothing would happen.
All these words were were empty platitudes. I'm aware of the problem, but I don't really know how to fix it. I wonder, if all the other 6+ billion people knew, or thought about these problems in a similar vein, what could happen? what would be done?
I could be the change I want to be in the world; I could not have a child, not marry, become a vegan and do my best to reduce my carbon footprint. But that is a start, and as I pointed out, the right wing doesn't want that. They just want the cancer cell of humanity to go on growing.
So, I'm going to go on growing, intellectually, at least. I'll continue to spew forth conspiracy-theory-based jargon. And, because my mental health is a liability, I'll continue to be ignored.
But mark my words, that Farm Bill of 2008 was a disaster. It is only a symptom of the dangers we will face in the 21st century. Thankfully, however, according to statistics, I only have about 50 or so years left (men only live to their early 70s), so, I should be fine. And my non-existent children from my non-existent marriage? They'll be fine, too.
But it's the rest of humanity that I worry about.
Pretentious platitudes aside, I was very inspired today, by an accident. I actually decided that today, rather than simply deleting all the news emails and what not that I get, I would read some of them, at least. I came across this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Tropic-Chaos-Climate-Geography-Violence/dp/1568586000
The ideas arn't particularly new. After all, anyone with any sense of history and proportion knows that the "modern" environmentalism movement in the US and the Western World emerged from the rubble of World War II, reaching a sort of peak in the late 1960s early 1970s with, in the creation of the US, the EPA and, of course, the beginning of Earth Day. Nothing there is particularly new, except perhaps that the figures have been updated to see the appallingly few things that have been done to ensure the world will go on surviving.
For me, at least, it rings with kind of a cruel irony. I am reminded of reading titles and books and figures and prognostications about the "future of the Soviet Union" the Soviet Union in "the 1990s" or "in the 21st century." As a good historian will point out, no one, not even in 1978-1981 (when Reagan came to Power, the new Pope was Polish, and the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan) or in 1985 (when Gorbachev came to power) truly thought the Soviet Union would be gone within the next 5-10 years. Obviously, there were such visions of the future (hell, just look at Brzezinski's work in the 1960s) that the premier human experiment, meant to be the realisation of modern Utopian visions and human equality was not meant to last and would fail sooner or later.
As far as I'm concerned, my revisionist knowledge of the history of the USSR more or less would be that Stalin and the notion of "socialism in one country" more or less damned the experiment. As it was put to me by my professor of Russian History, the Soviet Union can really be viewed as follows: before Stalin, during Stalin, and after Stalin. For all the talk of Marx and Lenin, the real core of the Soviet Union was, in fact, not the forgotten man, not the peasant-turned-industrial worker, but Stalin. It is a testament to the human spirit and stubbornness that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did. (Incidentally, not much ink (that I'm aware of) has been spilled on this fact, but Mexico, interestingly enough, endured a similar amount of time, in duration and oppression, as a one-party state, which only ended in 2000 with the election of Vicente Fox). But I digress.
This entry isn't about higher powers (though I began with that) or Alcohol or even alcoholism. And, despite the even bigger digression about Russia and the 20th century and what not, it isn't about Marxism or any of that, either. This entry is about humanity, and something that the experiments of the 20th century did not prepare us for. Also, this entry isn't really about environmentalism as a movement.
It is about an insidious fact that is coming to pass, once more: we live in an age of limits. Put more bluntly: there just ain't enough damn energy and food to feed everyone. Of course, there is a deeper problem than that, but let's focus on the food and energy issue.
There is an oil crisis. Again, not new, and anyone with a sense of time remembers the oil crises of the 1970s. In fact, that I word it as such is a continued testament to my pedantic nature and what not. But again, this entry isn't necessarily about me, either. I digress too often.
Coupled with the oil/energy crisis is also the water crisis. There is this book which I still think is a good introduction to the issue:
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Fate-Most-Precious-Resource/dp/0618127445 It was first released in 2001, and I probably read it in about 2005 or '06.
And, not only are we running out of energy to continue the life we lead, and not only are we running out of water, but we clearly don't have enough food. This, despite all the tons of food we waste; hundreds of pounds of food thrown out every day, in America that we throw out because it "expired" or "had a bit of mold" but had it been placed in front of some starving people, they'd have eaten it in all earnestness, baffled by the fact that anyone would throw out any food.
There is a reason for this, which again, I'll get back to. For right now, we are talking about the symptoms of the problems, such as energy, and food.
Where does the current crisis stem from? Well, for one, there is, in fact, climate change. I still don't get how any rational person will say that humans extracting so many resources from the planet and re-making the surface of it (by cutting down trees and erecting concrete monuments to our collective stupidity) wouldn't change the natural flow of the world. And, as silly as it may sound, there is, inevitably, the cosmic factor: the universe IS expanding, ever growing, ever changing. And, as anyone with a basic grasp of astronomy knows, the sun is a star, and, well, those burn out (or do they fade away? hey hey, my my). Of course, all that happens in such an unreal, slow-motion process that we, as human beings, as civilizations, could probably go on for a few hundred years, right?
Well, no. Look at all the dismal facts that are ever mounted and presented to us. Clearly, something is to be done. But, again, I wasn't hear to necessarily talk about climate change, though that does weigh heavy on my mind and is related.
I really want to talk about the food problem. Of course, climate change is a factor. If you look at the records, 2010 was one of the hottest years on record. Of the grain/wheat-producing nations, Russia burned and Australia flooded and thing wern't too great in the US, either. As a result, the price of wheat-based products have gone up almost 100 PERCENT in the past year. Again, any good shopper who actually looks at packages, sizes, prices per unit, etc, knows that even in the US (where it wasn't so bad) that we are still paying more for less. As Howard Beale put it in his famous speech "the dollar buys a nickles worth... banks are going bust.."
Yes, the banks have gone bust and clearly, capitalism --which is often rightly viewed as a system always trying to improve and out-produce itself-- is in danger once more. So, what do we do? Will an FDR emerge and borrow Socialist ideas? Hardly. With China, nominally, the "leader" of "left-leaning" causes like "communism" the dream is dead. It has been dead for a long, long time. How can we reform the world, politically, socially, economically, to be viable and allow us to survive?
A good agricultural plan would be a starting place.
It is my contention that the Farm bill of 2008 was George W. Bush's worst legacy. That's saying a lot, when you consider No Child Left Behind; the Patriot Act; and, of course, the Wars in the Middle East --wars, of course, which were meant to secure energy, so the United States (that 5% of the world's population) could go on consuming 25% of the world's resources. Yes, the Farm Bill was the worst piece of legislation of those 8 years. And, what makes matters worse, is that Congress was controlled (in both Chambers) by the alleged party of opposition, the Democrats. It wasn't as if passing a farm bill was new; that happens every 5 years or so.
So, what makes this particular farm bill so disastrous for humanity?
It continues our dependence on fossil fuels and turns America, almost exclusively, into a country beholden to growing corn. Ethanol is the way of the future, according to the farm bill.
So, what's the problem? Ethanol is NOT, long-term, a viable candidate to replace fossil fuels (which, again, the farm bill doesn't entirely want to get rid of, either). Corn/ethanol are being phased in. The problem with this is that not only is it not a good candidate to replace fossil fuels, it also has this problem: by resorting to mono-crop status, we are risking a new dust bowl. I read about all this in the pages of the Economist in 2006 and 2007. The literature pointing out these failures of the corn/ethanol boom has only grown. Thus, a Democratic Congress and a Republican president signed off on a deal --business as usual, really --to not really change much of anything. To continue subsidizing farmers and to work on creating a mono-crop culture. Why wasn't that given any attention?
Because, for whatever reason, we in the modern world don't seem to care or know much about agriculture. For me, at least, I bought into the myth that all our noble ancestors were good, smart farmers. Well, there's a lot of literature and evidence to the contrary on that. We as a species haven't gotten any real idea on how to grow food and support ourselves. No matter what we build and do, we are still beholden to the Earth. Of course, our actions certainly do affect how the Earth performs. In short, because of capitalism and the way humanity has evolved, we are ever growing for the sake of growth's sake --the ideology of the cancer cell. We are killing our planet.
I'm not really sure where all this leaves us. If Obama does serve a second term, he WILL get to pass his own farm bill. Of course, who knows if he'll have a Democratic, Republican, or (as is currently) a "split" Congress. On the other hand, Obama may not serve a second term, so it is also very possible that we will end up with a Republican president and a Republican congress.
Regardless of who is in power, the next farm bill won't rock the boat much. Ethanol will continue to reign supreme. This is because, since the last farm bill, we have seen that nuclear power is "unsafe" and not the way of the future. I don't happen to see any farm or wind or solar energy movements on the horizon, but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough. True, there is the case of Germany, which has shown that with less sunlight than some of the darkest places of the United States, that solar energy is viable. But who will care about that? Germany is attached to a sinking boat, the European Union. (Actually did just read an article talking about how the EU is becoming the Titanic). So, Germany may continue to pioneer energy examples, but no matter what people say, no one necessarily wants to follow in the footsteps of the country that did give us Hitler. I mean, when current and past administrations haven't been compared to Stalin (which is increasingly rare, it seems) there is the charge of Nazism. Thus, due to historical reasons and political-economic reasons, we're screwed.
The Third World is growing so fast, too. I hope it doesn't speak too much to my Euro-centrism (which is very real, very palpable) but it also seems that there are regions and countries going about industrialization the way the Western powers went about it, which is to say slow, inefficient, with little regard to quality of life for people or the environment. Until American hypocrisy stops (which no reigning superpower has ever been able to reduce) nothing is going to get done. Again, 5% using 25% of the resources? The pie can only be so big, and for better or for worse, it is being redistributed --and clearly not in the US's or the Western World's favour.
Now, I know. I've been trying to talk of humanity and how we need to work together, collectively. That last paragraph speaks of painful implications I don't want to go on about. I DO believe in a redistribution of wealth; I DO also believe in America (but not necessarily American exceptionalism) but I don't know how to reconcile those ideas. How does the love of humanity transcend the love of the nation-state?
I'm not sure. I've hinted at and laid out a lot of ideas. Some of them, naturally, are quite controversial. And, of course, because this a personal, public blog that usual details my own mind, none of this has been fact-checked or edited. I wrote it on the fly, even though these ideas have been with me for years.
I guess what I'm saying, is, until we in the United States can get good, honest leadership to direct us in a way which is conducive to real leadership for the world, not much is going to get done. Liberal democracy, one more, appears to be losing. This time, however, the winner is not the supposed socialism/communism of the Soviet Union, but the authoritarian capitalism of China et al.
Can Liberal democracy triumph? I sure hope so, and I am pretty sure that, like Socialism, the well is not dry. Of course, if we do continue on in this way, the well will be dry soon enough. That is the point of this entry.
We need sensible energy policies and a redistribution of resources and what not.
I said earlier that good energy policy, increasing food production, etc, are good ideas but they are, again, the symptom of greater problems. I'd like to think I hinted at such when I talked of growth and what not. How do we reconcile the problem of too many people and not enough food?
Well, it is simple enough. Margaret Sanger knew. The Social Darwnists and the eugenics movement had their ideas, too. (Incidentally, Ms Sanger, who helped create Planned Parenthood was herself a believer of eugenics). And the Chinese, with their infamous "one child" policy, knew, too. We need population control. Scary and shocking, I know. And, unlike the eugenicists, I don't think we should work on this, necessarily, by pushing for abortions or for tampering with DNA to ensure that we have a "pure race."
I have this theory, that I think there might be some literature about, but I'm not sure. Put simply (and bound to be distorted and used against me, should any of these ideas become serious or associated with me) but, Nazism did something good. Hitler's promotion of eugenics was enough to scare and frighten the rest of humanity for several decades. True, the collapse of the Third Reich did not immediately manifest itself in an end to racism or racial policies. The point is, the Cold War was focused on bettering humanity --all aspects of it. Human Rights became a cornerstone issue for the US and USSR, if not in practice, at least in name. That is a good start, I think. (There are also arguments, I've heard, that the Helsinki Accords of 1975 which promoted the idea of human rights helped to undermine the Soviet Union). From 1945-1991, be it the capitalist West or the "communist" East, the superpowers wanted to ensure rights for all.
Of course, the Right crept back to prominence in America. The eugenics movement never really died out, but with Hitler as its poster-boy, it definitely went underground. Well, look at the Republican party today. They don't want abortion; they don't want gays to marry. And, as much as it sounds like a conspiracy theory, it makes sense --if we promote abortion (and sex education, and contraception, etc) and homosexuality, the following could occur: population, at least in the US, would drop. In fact, again, look at where current growth (in terms of population) is: in the Third World. The Western powers are increasingly geriatric, even here in the US. If people make the choices to either not have kids or to give into their same sex-impulses, fewer kids. Thus, even if liberal democracy is better than authoritarian capitalism (which I do sincerely believe) it won't matter: the Chinese, among others, will dominate us population-wise.
Thus, though, technically, being "American" is not tied to any ethnicity, this also helps to shed light on the "immigration" issue and illegal aliens. Americans don't want to not be number one (even though that ended a long time ago); Americans don't want to speak Chinese or Arabic or Spanish. How do we continue then, aside from trying to remake the world in the American tradition through a jingoist, imperialist foreign policy?
Thus, there is that paradox for the Right-wing: how to promote people to have sex and thus reproduce, but at the same time tell them that sex is wrong and immoral? Wrap it up in the marriage issue. No sex until marriage, right? Well, get married, then! After all, marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. And, well, you stay together for the kids, right? Of course, that isn't really the case. The rates of premarital sex are high, and so is the divorce rate, but the use of contraception is not.
To me, this double-edgedness about sexuality --about how it is "bad" to do it without the guise of marriage, but "good" once you're in a "life-long" "committed" marriage -is very much so related to alcoholism. Being an alcoholic, I can tell you, that if I sit here and focus on not being able to drink, I'll probably drink more. In fact, if you set a beer in front of an alcoholic, and then leave them alone in the room with it, statistics show the person will probably drink it. (Why I single out alcohol, I don't know; similar studies hold true for food and for cigarettes and what not). The point is, not everyone, but certainly a large portion of the population, has impulse control. The failure rate of alcoholics anonymous points to that: only 2 percent succeed. But does that mean that all humanity is similarly programmed, similarly fated? No, not by a long shot.
I think I get it, however. I mean, when you're 17 and hormonal, the last thing you really want to be told is you can't give into those impulses, that you can't give into absolute pleasure. I mean, I get it: part of being human, of being alive, is the desire to fuck and have fun; on a subconscious level, that desire to fuck is linked to wanting to create a legacy --or at least a child to take care of you in old age. There is much talk and knowledge about parental (as opposed to simply "maternal") instincts.
But, the fact remains, that without a good sex education policy, without proper contraception and people learning to channel those sexual impulses into other activities, not much can be done.
For the foreseeable future, it appears that humanity, like that cancer cell, will go on growing. And as we do, the United States --still nominally number one --which lead by example. That example, unfortunately, is partly enshrined in our agricultural policies, which, as I said, are pretty much fated to fail.
None of this matters, however. No matter how cutting any of these insights may be, no matter how many books or facts I could have pointed to, and even if a seasoned academic were to put these ideas into some coherent whole, be it a book, a lecture, or an article or whatever, nothing would happen.
All these words were were empty platitudes. I'm aware of the problem, but I don't really know how to fix it. I wonder, if all the other 6+ billion people knew, or thought about these problems in a similar vein, what could happen? what would be done?
I could be the change I want to be in the world; I could not have a child, not marry, become a vegan and do my best to reduce my carbon footprint. But that is a start, and as I pointed out, the right wing doesn't want that. They just want the cancer cell of humanity to go on growing.
So, I'm going to go on growing, intellectually, at least. I'll continue to spew forth conspiracy-theory-based jargon. And, because my mental health is a liability, I'll continue to be ignored.
But mark my words, that Farm Bill of 2008 was a disaster. It is only a symptom of the dangers we will face in the 21st century. Thankfully, however, according to statistics, I only have about 50 or so years left (men only live to their early 70s), so, I should be fine. And my non-existent children from my non-existent marriage? They'll be fine, too.
But it's the rest of humanity that I worry about.