For a very long time I have been intrigued by the nature, and the future, of international law. It has long seemed to me that our destiny (very long-term) is to be a united world, with united laws. But the actual forming of such a unified world must be very difficult, even dangerous. Yet I believe that it is necessary, even vital, to the long-term survival and salvation of our species. In today’s blog entry, I want to deal with the civic and geopolitical issues of creating such a government. In a future post, I want to deal with the purely economic factors behind such a move.
Why create a world government? What can it do that the present world order cannot? For an example, I give you Darfur. The U.N. cannot pass a Chapter VII resolution condemning the Sudanese government, because of China’s permanent veto on the Security Council. So nothing is done. Nothing. In a truly powerful world government, with sole control of the world’s organized armed forces, such a massacre would probably never have started, and would certainly not have been allowed to continue. The Security Council of this new government could mediate all disputes, and once it was resolved to do so, could intervene swiftly and effectively.
Another reason is the final, decisive action such a government could take on universally despised institutions like slavery, child labor, forced prostitution, and female mutilation. The implementation of the current U.N. Charter on Human Rights, backed by the force of law and the threat of force, could dramatically increase the value of human life around the globe. There are things that the vast majority of humanity finds reprehensible, things that are legal and being practiced in dozens of countries, things that could be stopped by an organized body with the means and the will to do so.
Such a government, with the accompanying reduction of borders and increase of travel, would also collapse the barriers we have erected as peoples. The adoption of a common language for the world is something that can singlehandedly reduce intolerance. Racism is bred from fear, and fear comes from ignorance. Knowing another people, actually understanding their words, these things can only lead to a reduction of ignorance and an increase in prosperity.
But how to implement such a government? I propose using as many establishes institutions as possible. Therefore, adopting the U.N. General Assembly as a basic template seems a good idea. Doubtless there are going to be some proponents (particularly in China and India) of weighted representation, so it is certainly possible that a bicameral legislature would be necessary (i.e. the Senate and the House). However, the main duties of the World Government would be to implement and enforce the initial laws and principles of the founding documents. Human rights, economic and trade agreements, defense protocols, all these would be established before anybody becomes a part of such an organization. The legislature would not be called on to pass many new laws; rather they would exist to pass legislation that would enforce or modify the existing charter. As far as an executive, I envision one similar to the U.N. Secretary General; someone not from one of the major countries, with few inherent powers, but who would gradually develop their position’s role over time.
The real backbone of the World Government would be the International Court System and the Security Council. Both of these organizations exist in some form today. I merely propose that their reach be extended, and in the Security Council’s case, revised somewhat. In the European Union, all member states still pass their own laws and govern their own countries. The Union only becomes involved when a member states passes a law that conflicts with the laws of the E.U. In all such cases the Union law supersedes the member nation’s law. So it would be with the world government.
As far as security goes, one of the greatest dangers with a world government is that it would make it easier for one member nation to pursue a jingoistic agenda. As such, I think a major principle of such a government would be the integration of all armed forces: every combat unit would draw from multiple ethnicities and global regions. The United States would have to give up its tanks, its aircraft, all its weapons, to the world body. Troops would be paid well, but would be trained on the opposite sides of the world, and deployed far from their native soil, along with men and women they had never met, but whose language they shared. They would be commanded by a civilian body: the Security Council. There can be no more permanent veto, but I think there should be permanent members, at least for the first forty years (more on that later), given that some nations have a far larger global footprint than others. I propose Japan, China, India, Russia, the US, Germany, the UK, France, Nigeria, Algeria, South Africa, Brasil, and Argentina. The other twelve or so members can be elected to two-year terms, just like the Security Council in real life. One other important modification is that, through some form of checks and balances, the Security Council must be made subordinate to the General Assembly.
Obviously such a plan would face immense opposition from almost every major government in the world. But trial balloons need to be floated. Some sovereignty needs to be ceded to global bodies, bit by bit. The time will be right for this idea one day, probably when people are scared enough by the state of the environment. And it will be implemented, and there will be problems. It is how we react to those problems that will determine the future of such an organization. The first forty years will be everything. After that the government will be increasingly staffed by people who have grown up with the idea, who are comfortable moving within it. Until that point everything must be done with a thought to precedent, for the idea is to create something that will live on long after humanity has ventured into the stars.
That’s the real reason behind all this: the stars. One day this world will not be enough for us, and we will move forward. Do we want to do so as a planet divided, squabbling and dissonant? Or do we want to step forward as one, proclaiming with one voice that this who we are, and this is what we stand for. Human history has been a continuous struggle of assimilation. It may be hard to believe, but there are fewer total governments than ever before. The world grows ever smaller, and past differences can be forgotten. As the artist Will Power used to say, “you don’t ever meet some guy on the street going ‘bitch, I’m Phoenician!’” We don’t all have to be the same, or look the same. But we can all play by the same rules, be protected by the same rights, and have the same opportunities to reach for the skies.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
#4 Insurance Reduction
Risk management is one of those modern terms, like Peacekeeper Missiles and Fat-Free Ice Cream, that refers to something very real, something legitimate and accepted by our modern world, and something that becomes slightly absurd when viewed from a wider context. We live in a dangerous world, but not as dangerous as the one we are paying for. Basically, I think we need to grow a pair.
Global insurance premiums totaled close to $4.1 trillion in 2007, up 3.3% (2008 figures aren’t available yet, though they will likely show less growth, due to the world’s financial markets sinking into the sea). The United States accounts for 30% of that, with premiums totaling $1.23 trillion, or about $4,087 dollars per head. For all of these statistics on global insurance, as well as others, click here.
I have philosophical and economic objections to insurance. Philosophical first: fear begets insurance, and insurance begets fear. Insurance premiums are just one of the many prices people decide to pay so they won’t be afraid of the world around them. The fact is we are unbelievably more safe, by every measurable standard, than even our very recent ancestors. Violent crime has plummeted, health care is better than ever, as are cars, planes, and public transport. Yet why are we paying more each year for insurance, instead of less? Why is the amount we pay to feel safe in inverse proportion to the risk we are actually in? And why, with all of the financial and physical condoms we wrap on ourselves, do we not feel safer?
I’m reminded of those lengthy public health assemblies for children about Halloween, in which they were repeatedly reminded to NEVER accept candy from strangers. It may contain razors, it may contain drugs, there may be alien symbiotes living in the Mars Bars. These types of assemblies, along with a media firestorm of coverage about “candy poisoners” created enormous amounts of fear among parents and communities at large. In 1985 a poll found 60% of parents feared their children would be harmed by tampered candy. As recently as 2004 there were fire departments and hospitals offering to x-ray candy received. Despite all of that...there are no instances of random poisonings through Halloween candy. None. Read here if you doubt. But facts cease to matter. The fear is what sticks. We are told we “can never be too careful”. I don’t think whoever wrote that lived in our time.
Economically speaking, insurance has been shown to be a tool that helps those who least need helping and often hinders actual work being done. People who are poor, unhealthy, or for that matter, black, have a much harder time getting insurance than they would if they lived on the other side of the Redline. Yet these people need it most. Likewise, people living truly adventurous and courageous lives often can not be insured, because their behavior is deemed too risky. And some of our most skilled professionals cannot afford to work in some areas due to the ridiculously high costs of malpractice insurance.
But the insurance companies are not necessarily to blame for all of this (they absolutely are with health insurance, but that is a future entry). They are providing a needed service. My aim is to eradicate the need. This leads me to my solutions: drastic limitations on litigation in this country, and increased personal and media responsibility.
I am a huge proponent of tort reform. There were 15 million lawsuits filed last year in this country. Unfortunately, I think one of the most needed steps is one of the most unachievable: elimination of juries in many civil actions. Unnecessarily huge payouts and a less than balanced perspective are just two of the problems that arise when you give twelve laymen and women control of huge amounts of money. Unfortunately, that would probably require a constitutional amendment. On the more doable scale, I would like to see legislation that makes it more common for a plaintiff to be required to cover the defendant’s legal fees if the suit is dismissed. This would greatly reduce the financial fear of litigation, and hopefully lower the total amount of frivolous lawsuits.
Beyond that, personal responsibility cannot be legislated. But it can be taught. It is your right to bring a lawsuit against someone. But it is not your duty. Nobody needs to file a suit seeking punitive emotional damages after a car accident. But still it happens often. Though it often seems like an urban myth, a jury really did award Stella Liebeck $2.7 million dollars for burning herself with coffee. These lawsuits raise premiums, encourage profit-seeking litigators, but worst of all, they make companies and people justly afraid of idiots with lawyers and microphones. Through a decrease in litigation and an upsurge in oldschool responsibility, insurance might be able to be curtailed to areas where we actually need it, and out of the fat-free peacekeeping.
Global insurance premiums totaled close to $4.1 trillion in 2007, up 3.3% (2008 figures aren’t available yet, though they will likely show less growth, due to the world’s financial markets sinking into the sea). The United States accounts for 30% of that, with premiums totaling $1.23 trillion, or about $4,087 dollars per head. For all of these statistics on global insurance, as well as others, click here.
I have philosophical and economic objections to insurance. Philosophical first: fear begets insurance, and insurance begets fear. Insurance premiums are just one of the many prices people decide to pay so they won’t be afraid of the world around them. The fact is we are unbelievably more safe, by every measurable standard, than even our very recent ancestors. Violent crime has plummeted, health care is better than ever, as are cars, planes, and public transport. Yet why are we paying more each year for insurance, instead of less? Why is the amount we pay to feel safe in inverse proportion to the risk we are actually in? And why, with all of the financial and physical condoms we wrap on ourselves, do we not feel safer?
I’m reminded of those lengthy public health assemblies for children about Halloween, in which they were repeatedly reminded to NEVER accept candy from strangers. It may contain razors, it may contain drugs, there may be alien symbiotes living in the Mars Bars. These types of assemblies, along with a media firestorm of coverage about “candy poisoners” created enormous amounts of fear among parents and communities at large. In 1985 a poll found 60% of parents feared their children would be harmed by tampered candy. As recently as 2004 there were fire departments and hospitals offering to x-ray candy received. Despite all of that...there are no instances of random poisonings through Halloween candy. None. Read here if you doubt. But facts cease to matter. The fear is what sticks. We are told we “can never be too careful”. I don’t think whoever wrote that lived in our time.
Economically speaking, insurance has been shown to be a tool that helps those who least need helping and often hinders actual work being done. People who are poor, unhealthy, or for that matter, black, have a much harder time getting insurance than they would if they lived on the other side of the Redline. Yet these people need it most. Likewise, people living truly adventurous and courageous lives often can not be insured, because their behavior is deemed too risky. And some of our most skilled professionals cannot afford to work in some areas due to the ridiculously high costs of malpractice insurance.
But the insurance companies are not necessarily to blame for all of this (they absolutely are with health insurance, but that is a future entry). They are providing a needed service. My aim is to eradicate the need. This leads me to my solutions: drastic limitations on litigation in this country, and increased personal and media responsibility.
I am a huge proponent of tort reform. There were 15 million lawsuits filed last year in this country. Unfortunately, I think one of the most needed steps is one of the most unachievable: elimination of juries in many civil actions. Unnecessarily huge payouts and a less than balanced perspective are just two of the problems that arise when you give twelve laymen and women control of huge amounts of money. Unfortunately, that would probably require a constitutional amendment. On the more doable scale, I would like to see legislation that makes it more common for a plaintiff to be required to cover the defendant’s legal fees if the suit is dismissed. This would greatly reduce the financial fear of litigation, and hopefully lower the total amount of frivolous lawsuits.
Beyond that, personal responsibility cannot be legislated. But it can be taught. It is your right to bring a lawsuit against someone. But it is not your duty. Nobody needs to file a suit seeking punitive emotional damages after a car accident. But still it happens often. Though it often seems like an urban myth, a jury really did award Stella Liebeck $2.7 million dollars for burning herself with coffee. These lawsuits raise premiums, encourage profit-seeking litigators, but worst of all, they make companies and people justly afraid of idiots with lawyers and microphones. Through a decrease in litigation and an upsurge in oldschool responsibility, insurance might be able to be curtailed to areas where we actually need it, and out of the fat-free peacekeeping.
Monday, March 2, 2009
#3 Abolishing Unions
So the first two bad ideas were not truly bad ideas. By definition any plan advocating state-sponsored vasectomies lacks balls. So here’s a truly bad idea that will never work, but perhaps we should just do it anyway: let’s dissolve labor unions in the United States of America.
There are (understandably) not a lot of professional academics doing research on this idea, so my facts will be a bit lighter than normal. Still, in the last 60 years we have seen a 66% decrease in union membership. 12% of all workers in America are unionized, and only 8% of private sector employees. Construction unions have seen a drop from 84% of all workers in 1953 to 22% in the late 1980s. The percentages of union members by private or public business has essentially reversed in those years; in the 40’s, only about 9% of public sector employees were unionized, today that figure is about 36%. Union membership is clearly on the decline; let’s help it out a little extra.
I have had the opportunity to work with a unique institution: the Prospect Park Alliance. This not-for-profit corporation runs Prospect Park in conjunction with the New York City Parks Department, and the difference in the two organizations is startling. I have personally witnessed Parks employees literally falling asleep on the job. They are often poorly trained, and are always incredibly inefficient. Yet they have no fear of consequences, as it is near to impossible to fire them. I’ve spoken to friends of mine in other sectors that work with trade unions, specifically manufacturing and education (throwing the NEA into a wood chipper is a future Bad Idea). Their impressions mirror my own.
They have found that labor unions remove two of the best incentives for professional excellence, money and fear, leaving only pride, which is a difficult factor to assess statistically. People generally work hard because they want to earn more money. It is a generally accepted notion of free market principles that if you work harder and are more productive than your neighbor, you will make more money than him/her. Labor unions remove this incentive from the equation. You are either a worker or not, a supervisor or not. Union members often know what they will be making for the next twenty years, barring catastrophe. As for the second incentive, to return to our neighbor, it is generally accepted that if you do not work as hard and are not as productive as him/her, than they will have a job, and you will be on the streets. This is not possible in most unions, barring catastrophic mistakes. Business are put in the position of having to decide in 6 months whether they want to retain an employee for the next 20 years. And given the huge financial incentive presented to the employee in those 6 months, a fair and honest evaluation of their productivity for the next 20 years is probably impossible. It’s the equivalent of signing a ball player in a contract year, who you’ve only watched for those 6 months, to play third base for the rest of his life.
The other major problem is that unions were originally created to defend the average worker from unspeakable working conditions and backbreaking poverty. That is no longer the case. The average union worker is living comfortably by United States standards, and their benefits and pensions dwarf those of most non-unionized workers. Though it was a hotly debated statement, some Senators in the auto bailout hearings stated that huge pension and health plans had put US automakers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Whether that is true or not, I think it is clear that unions are no longer protecting people who need them the most. The worst and hardest work in the United States is being done by immigrants. Fatalities among foreign-born workers while on the job have risen by 48% in the last several decades, according to the AFL/CIO. Many of those injuries did not involve workmen’s compensation, because the fatalities were to illegal immigrants.
So here is my bad idea: dissolve labor unions. Let the average worker be included in the capitalist system. I believe it will increase productivity, and therefore increase the standard of living for workers everywhere. Are other significant improvements needed to fix the labor problems in America? Yes. It is time to take a good, hard, communist look at the unconscionable amounts of money paid to executives in America today. We must also devote immediate time and energy to protecting the fundamental rights of all workers in America, even if they are not American. Employers taking advantage of cheap, imported foreign labor should be taken to task, and should have their competitive advantage removed. We can replace labor unions with the NLRB when it comes to unfair hiring and firing practices, and both the average worker and major industries will improve in the long run. You see, I realize that millions of hard-working and incredibly productive people do their producing in unions, and I have no issue with them. In fact, they would make more money with this idea. It makes the market for better workers incredibly more competitive, and it forces inferior workers to step up or stay home.
I apologize for the mostly theoretical nature of this blog post, as I said, statistics were harder to come by, and I have limited research time. But we need to find ways of updating the concept of the American workforce, and I think this could be a huge part of it. Unions have become a place to have it made, and I believe that institutionalized coasting is profoundly undemocratic.
There are (understandably) not a lot of professional academics doing research on this idea, so my facts will be a bit lighter than normal. Still, in the last 60 years we have seen a 66% decrease in union membership. 12% of all workers in America are unionized, and only 8% of private sector employees. Construction unions have seen a drop from 84% of all workers in 1953 to 22% in the late 1980s. The percentages of union members by private or public business has essentially reversed in those years; in the 40’s, only about 9% of public sector employees were unionized, today that figure is about 36%. Union membership is clearly on the decline; let’s help it out a little extra.
I have had the opportunity to work with a unique institution: the Prospect Park Alliance. This not-for-profit corporation runs Prospect Park in conjunction with the New York City Parks Department, and the difference in the two organizations is startling. I have personally witnessed Parks employees literally falling asleep on the job. They are often poorly trained, and are always incredibly inefficient. Yet they have no fear of consequences, as it is near to impossible to fire them. I’ve spoken to friends of mine in other sectors that work with trade unions, specifically manufacturing and education (throwing the NEA into a wood chipper is a future Bad Idea). Their impressions mirror my own.
They have found that labor unions remove two of the best incentives for professional excellence, money and fear, leaving only pride, which is a difficult factor to assess statistically. People generally work hard because they want to earn more money. It is a generally accepted notion of free market principles that if you work harder and are more productive than your neighbor, you will make more money than him/her. Labor unions remove this incentive from the equation. You are either a worker or not, a supervisor or not. Union members often know what they will be making for the next twenty years, barring catastrophe. As for the second incentive, to return to our neighbor, it is generally accepted that if you do not work as hard and are not as productive as him/her, than they will have a job, and you will be on the streets. This is not possible in most unions, barring catastrophic mistakes. Business are put in the position of having to decide in 6 months whether they want to retain an employee for the next 20 years. And given the huge financial incentive presented to the employee in those 6 months, a fair and honest evaluation of their productivity for the next 20 years is probably impossible. It’s the equivalent of signing a ball player in a contract year, who you’ve only watched for those 6 months, to play third base for the rest of his life.
The other major problem is that unions were originally created to defend the average worker from unspeakable working conditions and backbreaking poverty. That is no longer the case. The average union worker is living comfortably by United States standards, and their benefits and pensions dwarf those of most non-unionized workers. Though it was a hotly debated statement, some Senators in the auto bailout hearings stated that huge pension and health plans had put US automakers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Whether that is true or not, I think it is clear that unions are no longer protecting people who need them the most. The worst and hardest work in the United States is being done by immigrants. Fatalities among foreign-born workers while on the job have risen by 48% in the last several decades, according to the AFL/CIO. Many of those injuries did not involve workmen’s compensation, because the fatalities were to illegal immigrants.
So here is my bad idea: dissolve labor unions. Let the average worker be included in the capitalist system. I believe it will increase productivity, and therefore increase the standard of living for workers everywhere. Are other significant improvements needed to fix the labor problems in America? Yes. It is time to take a good, hard, communist look at the unconscionable amounts of money paid to executives in America today. We must also devote immediate time and energy to protecting the fundamental rights of all workers in America, even if they are not American. Employers taking advantage of cheap, imported foreign labor should be taken to task, and should have their competitive advantage removed. We can replace labor unions with the NLRB when it comes to unfair hiring and firing practices, and both the average worker and major industries will improve in the long run. You see, I realize that millions of hard-working and incredibly productive people do their producing in unions, and I have no issue with them. In fact, they would make more money with this idea. It makes the market for better workers incredibly more competitive, and it forces inferior workers to step up or stay home.
I apologize for the mostly theoretical nature of this blog post, as I said, statistics were harder to come by, and I have limited research time. But we need to find ways of updating the concept of the American workforce, and I think this could be a huge part of it. Unions have become a place to have it made, and I believe that institutionalized coasting is profoundly undemocratic.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
#2 Desalinization
One of the leading causes of death worldwide, especially in impoverished areas, is water scarcity or diseases transmitted in polluted water supplies. The UN estimates that about 1.1 billion people are do not have adequate access to safe drinking water, and an additional 1.5 billion do not have adequate water for sanitation purposes. Groundwater overdraws are creating sinkholes, ruining the very fields they are meant to nourish, and occasionally polluting the wells themselves (“Groundwater Drawdown”, an article by Kally Worm from Evergreen State College, goes much more in depth). In Mexico City, which is built on an old lake bed, and whose water supply consists entirely of an underground aquifier, overpumping is resulting in a depleted aquifier. This in turn is literally sucking Mexico City down. Parts of the city have fallen by as much as 25 feet in the last century. The Colorado River has not reached the ocean for decades, and several of its basins are below 50% of their capacity.
Free-market economies tend to be exactly as forward-thinking as they need to be. Hybrids did not start getting made until people would start buying them, and even then many models bombed. Huge investments in expensive technologies that are not cost-efficient and are not immediately necessary do not fit into the free-market theory. The problem is that water shortages are huge problems for modern societies. Lack of adequate water often means a contamination of the basic water supply, which in turn means disease outbreaks. These things tend to happen in the larger population centers, and they also happen quickly. But since predicting when they will happen is tricky business, it is not an immediate priority for private business. Which is why we have a federal government.
We need to appropriate funds for massive investments in desalinization technology. Desalinization is the removal of salt from water. It allows us access to a limitless water source. I guarantee you that in a hundred years, desalination plants will be as common as hospitals. But right now they are not cost-effective, and they are riddled with environmental and logistical problems. It is ridiculous to expect a company, particularly in America, where we have a relatively stable water supply (though that may be changing, particularly in the Midwest), to lose money on a technology that is decades from being heavily implemented. But it is the government’s duty to spend enough money to make desalinization cheap enough that it is affordable worldwide. Unfortunately, that is only half the battle. Philanthropists and governments across the world need to begin to raise the money for construction of infrastructure in developing nations. Part of that infrastructure must include provisions for inland water supply.
I’m talking about billions of dollars being spent on something that we don’t need. This is not an easy sell, but it is also an issue that needs foresight, as well as a kick in the ass. It takes a human being less than a week to die of extreme dehydration, sometimes much less. But more than that, many economists and environmentalists have predicted that the next major conflicts will be fought over water supplies. North and South Korea, Israel and Palestine, Egypt and Ethiopia, these are just a few of the countries undergoing water disputes, and the United States’ vital interests are tied in with several of those nations. This is not a sexy idea, and if it is handled right, nobody will probably notice. So maybe it’s a bad idea. But waiting could be far worse. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, “it gets dry early out there.”
Free-market economies tend to be exactly as forward-thinking as they need to be. Hybrids did not start getting made until people would start buying them, and even then many models bombed. Huge investments in expensive technologies that are not cost-efficient and are not immediately necessary do not fit into the free-market theory. The problem is that water shortages are huge problems for modern societies. Lack of adequate water often means a contamination of the basic water supply, which in turn means disease outbreaks. These things tend to happen in the larger population centers, and they also happen quickly. But since predicting when they will happen is tricky business, it is not an immediate priority for private business. Which is why we have a federal government.
We need to appropriate funds for massive investments in desalinization technology. Desalinization is the removal of salt from water. It allows us access to a limitless water source. I guarantee you that in a hundred years, desalination plants will be as common as hospitals. But right now they are not cost-effective, and they are riddled with environmental and logistical problems. It is ridiculous to expect a company, particularly in America, where we have a relatively stable water supply (though that may be changing, particularly in the Midwest), to lose money on a technology that is decades from being heavily implemented. But it is the government’s duty to spend enough money to make desalinization cheap enough that it is affordable worldwide. Unfortunately, that is only half the battle. Philanthropists and governments across the world need to begin to raise the money for construction of infrastructure in developing nations. Part of that infrastructure must include provisions for inland water supply.
I’m talking about billions of dollars being spent on something that we don’t need. This is not an easy sell, but it is also an issue that needs foresight, as well as a kick in the ass. It takes a human being less than a week to die of extreme dehydration, sometimes much less. But more than that, many economists and environmentalists have predicted that the next major conflicts will be fought over water supplies. North and South Korea, Israel and Palestine, Egypt and Ethiopia, these are just a few of the countries undergoing water disputes, and the United States’ vital interests are tied in with several of those nations. This is not a sexy idea, and if it is handled right, nobody will probably notice. So maybe it’s a bad idea. But waiting could be far worse. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, “it gets dry early out there.”
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
#1 Population Control
In 1800, according to the History Database of the Global Environment, the world’s population stood at 980,851,296. We first cracked the billion mark around 1804. It took until 1927, 123 years later, for the world population to push two billion. In 1959, we hit three billion, and gentlemen, start your engines. 1974, four billion, 1987, five, 1999, six, and in almost exactly three years, in February of 2012, we can all break out the Siete Billones hats.
Not to belabor those basic numbers, but again, it took humanity somewhere around 11,800 years to pop the billionth cork. It took us just 123 years to double that. If the United Nations and the US Census Bureau know what they’re talking about, it will have taken us just under a hundred years to quadruple the population from two to eight billion. And according to Thomas Roberth Malthus, with each babbling bundle of joy we are barreling just a little faster towards an invisible line. He famously stated that since population growth is exponential (2, 4, 8, 16), while subsistence growth is arithmetical (2, 3, 4, 5), it was inevitable that one day humanity would exceed the Earth’s capacity for food, resulting in what later theorists would call a Malthusian Catastrophe.
I have no interest in hyperbole. Paul R. Ehrlich predicted in 1968 that the 70’s and 80’s would see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, the result of horrific famine and starvation. He was, quite obviously, wrong. So any claims of doom and catastrophe I could make would be alarmist and premature. BUT, I am proposing population control. Strict population control. The American life expectancy has risen by 30 years in the last hundred years, while infant mortality has plummeted. The quality of life has likewise risen, but so has the value of life. We have three times as many people, and we expect them to be better off. And in America, by and large, we have been successful. Many economists would argue that the increased population density, made possible by agricultural innovation, also helped created the technological explosion that was the 20th century. Higher population density leads to increased specialization, which in turn leads to further innovation and an increase in quality of life. Most of the work I’m referencing is Julian Simon’s. He believed that due to market and societal innovation, mankind would be able to sustain any future population growth, and do so comfortably. I believe his exact quote was “we have the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy for an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years.” My simple response is: do we really want to?
Population increases create stress. They can force invention and ingenuity, but they can also put 35 children in a classroom and millions of our citizens on the streets. World energy consumption is projected to increase 50% in the next twenty years. Carbon emissions follow a fairly similar trajectory. The world’s oil production peak will probably be reached in the next twenty years, if it hasn’t been already, and if I live to 85 the American Petroleum Institute thinks there’s a decent chance I will get to see our planet run out of oil completely. Eleven million children are dying per year of diseases that are strictly preventable. One in four acres on this planet has been devoted to the consumption of food, along with one in three jobs, but the pressures put upon agriculture have led to the worldwide rise in convenience food, which in turn has led to a rise in childhood obesity (as high as 50% in some demographics). We can fatten our poorest people with the worst food possible, but our richest people stay skinny by running miles in place.
Change is possible. In fact, birth rates have been slowly declining for a few decades, but still too slowly to keep up with decreased mortality rates. Change can start in America. Our population growth is the highest of any industrial nation, as is our per capita energy consumption (many of these statistics are from Albert Bartlett’s articles “Scientists and the Secret Lie”, a wonderful read). One less American means the world to the world. And I’m not saying no children for anyone. I’m saying less. If a tax credit was given to families that stopped after two children (no negative penalty, just an incentive), or if the government paid for women to have their tubes tied and for men to have vasectomies, who does that hurt?
The answer to that question is, the economy (Bartlett mentions this, as well as reminding me of a great quote, “The chief source of problems is solutions” from Eric Sevareid). Our economy expects to grow every year. Which is a nice idea, but it assumes our population is growing as well. Why does it have to? Why can’t we slow down, instead of being stopped? Why can’t we show, in that most crucial of decisions, to have a child or not, a shade of restraint? A bad idea, perhaps. But what else is this blog for? And besides: in 1729 Jonathan Swift satirically published a population control theory of his own. It was called A Modest Proposal, and it outlined a plan to control Irish overpopulation and poverty: poor Irish could sell their children for food. Now there’s a bad idea.
Not to belabor those basic numbers, but again, it took humanity somewhere around 11,800 years to pop the billionth cork. It took us just 123 years to double that. If the United Nations and the US Census Bureau know what they’re talking about, it will have taken us just under a hundred years to quadruple the population from two to eight billion. And according to Thomas Roberth Malthus, with each babbling bundle of joy we are barreling just a little faster towards an invisible line. He famously stated that since population growth is exponential (2, 4, 8, 16), while subsistence growth is arithmetical (2, 3, 4, 5), it was inevitable that one day humanity would exceed the Earth’s capacity for food, resulting in what later theorists would call a Malthusian Catastrophe.
I have no interest in hyperbole. Paul R. Ehrlich predicted in 1968 that the 70’s and 80’s would see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, the result of horrific famine and starvation. He was, quite obviously, wrong. So any claims of doom and catastrophe I could make would be alarmist and premature. BUT, I am proposing population control. Strict population control. The American life expectancy has risen by 30 years in the last hundred years, while infant mortality has plummeted. The quality of life has likewise risen, but so has the value of life. We have three times as many people, and we expect them to be better off. And in America, by and large, we have been successful. Many economists would argue that the increased population density, made possible by agricultural innovation, also helped created the technological explosion that was the 20th century. Higher population density leads to increased specialization, which in turn leads to further innovation and an increase in quality of life. Most of the work I’m referencing is Julian Simon’s. He believed that due to market and societal innovation, mankind would be able to sustain any future population growth, and do so comfortably. I believe his exact quote was “we have the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy for an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years.” My simple response is: do we really want to?
Population increases create stress. They can force invention and ingenuity, but they can also put 35 children in a classroom and millions of our citizens on the streets. World energy consumption is projected to increase 50% in the next twenty years. Carbon emissions follow a fairly similar trajectory. The world’s oil production peak will probably be reached in the next twenty years, if it hasn’t been already, and if I live to 85 the American Petroleum Institute thinks there’s a decent chance I will get to see our planet run out of oil completely. Eleven million children are dying per year of diseases that are strictly preventable. One in four acres on this planet has been devoted to the consumption of food, along with one in three jobs, but the pressures put upon agriculture have led to the worldwide rise in convenience food, which in turn has led to a rise in childhood obesity (as high as 50% in some demographics). We can fatten our poorest people with the worst food possible, but our richest people stay skinny by running miles in place.
Change is possible. In fact, birth rates have been slowly declining for a few decades, but still too slowly to keep up with decreased mortality rates. Change can start in America. Our population growth is the highest of any industrial nation, as is our per capita energy consumption (many of these statistics are from Albert Bartlett’s articles “Scientists and the Secret Lie”, a wonderful read). One less American means the world to the world. And I’m not saying no children for anyone. I’m saying less. If a tax credit was given to families that stopped after two children (no negative penalty, just an incentive), or if the government paid for women to have their tubes tied and for men to have vasectomies, who does that hurt?
The answer to that question is, the economy (Bartlett mentions this, as well as reminding me of a great quote, “The chief source of problems is solutions” from Eric Sevareid). Our economy expects to grow every year. Which is a nice idea, but it assumes our population is growing as well. Why does it have to? Why can’t we slow down, instead of being stopped? Why can’t we show, in that most crucial of decisions, to have a child or not, a shade of restraint? A bad idea, perhaps. But what else is this blog for? And besides: in 1729 Jonathan Swift satirically published a population control theory of his own. It was called A Modest Proposal, and it outlined a plan to control Irish overpopulation and poverty: poor Irish could sell their children for food. Now there’s a bad idea.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Beginnings of a Bad Idea
My background is theater, specifically theatrical direction. And as a director, one of my favorite tools was the bad idea. If I give an actor the assignment to think of one brilliant action, I generally get crap, as well as a psychologically damaged actor. But if I tell the same actor to perform ten bad actions quickly, without thinking, one of them tends to be brilliant. This blog functions on the same principles. I'm leaving this country to join the Peace Corps. I've been told my departure date is sometime early next year. Let's assume I have 50 weeks. On average of twice a week, I will publish a post detailing a truly stupid idea about how America can move forward. Moving forward could be defined as creating jobs, improving infrastructure, bettering our youth, reducing crime, or improving the environment, to name a few. Most of the ideas will attempt to encompass several of those definitions. As prefaced by this essay, and the title, generally the ideas will be bad ones. So please, feel free not to respond to one of my blogs by saying how bad an idea you think it is. You will be mocked. (unless you have something truly funny to say...in which case fire away). However, if one of the ideas intrigues you, let me know what you think. Adjust, tweak, and reinvent all you like. But in the spirit of this blog, never, ever, suggest that an idea is too stupid to be put forth and discussed. At the end of this year, perhaps one of these ideas will prove to not be so bad after all. If that is the case, where we go from there is largely up to you. But remember, we are represented, at any given time, by dozens of different people who need our support. It is not just right for them to listen, it is their duty.
A final note. In writing these entries I will do my best to research thoroughly and give credit where credit is do, if I indeed borrow anyone's words, ideas, or sentiments. However, I may very well propose an economic plan that, unbeknownst to me, Ralph Nader has been agitating about since 1981. By all means, bring that to my attention. But please, do so as an addendum, not as a refutation. There may well be no new ideas left, just new combinations. What may have failed in the past may work now, and there is no reason why this blog cannot be a dialogue with philosophies and systems centuries older than us. But while it is important that you know I am not a plagiarist, it is also important that you know I will never stop advocating a bad idea simply because it has been brought up before, or shot down before, or was in fact brought up yesterday morning on The View. I'm not writing this blog for credit or fame, and so none can be removed from me (I wish I could say the same for my dignity).
Well, so much for the foreplay. Now, light up your cigarettes, turn on your turntables, and prepare for the Ed Wood of public science blogs. Because what I lack in quality, I hope to make up for in quantity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)