Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hunger--Faces of the Future
http://www.newsweek.com/id/131518
One of the things that strikes me from looking at these pictures is that it's not just hunger in Africa any more. We've become far too jaded about Africa for Newsweek to bother with a series of photographs of malnourished black people. That would neither, to twist Eddie Bernays' phrase, jut out of the usual routine, nor would it evoke a response.
The photographs do capture a more compelling twist to the usual pictures of the starving, which, unless it is seen in person, or felt as a personal past experience, can result in energy-draining pity, rather than energy-enhancing compassion.
To me, these pictures come tinged with something different, which I didn't notice right away until I had spent some time with them. And that difference is fear. These pictures are from desperate places around the globe, indicating a surge in the spread of hunger, as well as the threat of an attendant break down in the social order.
It's been almost thirty years ago now, but there was a time in my life when I lived nearly a year on a dozen eggs a week. It was all I could afford. And, if you count carefully, you realize that there are some days when you can have two eggs ... but not every day. I remember looking forward to two-egg days. When that happens, one never forgets.
The problem is escalating. The heady days of the Green Revolution of the 1970's are over. Barring a major scientific breakthrough, the world's ability to produce food has peaked. The major causes include the excessive use of underground water supplies [world-wide, water tables are dropping], peak oil has caused an increase in the use—and price—of natural gas, from which most fertilizers are made, and the uncertainty of climate change has made a successful harvest more “iffy” than ever. Increased crop yields from genetically modified crops have, at least in terms of the Big Three grains [corn, wheat, and rice], largely peaked as well. [Although increased yields can still be expected in other crops. I've read recent articles on yield improvements in potatoes and African bananas].
More troubling is the recent projection that global warming could cause the Arctic to become ice-free by 2013. Besides the obvious hazard of releasing increasing amounts of methane hydrates, which would further accelerate global warming, the melt could wreck havoc with a species of zooplankton called copepods which live beneath the Arctic ice and form a vital link in the Arctic food chain, which, in turn, links to the oceans world-wide. We should have some idea of the extent of the damage in about five years.
If you have a chance to see this, it's well worthwhile:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/oceans/locations/arctic/
A quick look at copepods:
http://marine-life.suite101.com/article.cfm/copepods
A quick look at the Arctic ecosystem:
http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/arctic/ecosystem.html
The best single book available on the world's food supply:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Food-Paul-Roberts/dp/0618606238/
One of the things that strikes me from looking at these pictures is that it's not just hunger in Africa any more. We've become far too jaded about Africa for Newsweek to bother with a series of photographs of malnourished black people. That would neither, to twist Eddie Bernays' phrase, jut out of the usual routine, nor would it evoke a response.
The photographs do capture a more compelling twist to the usual pictures of the starving, which, unless it is seen in person, or felt as a personal past experience, can result in energy-draining pity, rather than energy-enhancing compassion.
To me, these pictures come tinged with something different, which I didn't notice right away until I had spent some time with them. And that difference is fear. These pictures are from desperate places around the globe, indicating a surge in the spread of hunger, as well as the threat of an attendant break down in the social order.
It's been almost thirty years ago now, but there was a time in my life when I lived nearly a year on a dozen eggs a week. It was all I could afford. And, if you count carefully, you realize that there are some days when you can have two eggs ... but not every day. I remember looking forward to two-egg days. When that happens, one never forgets.
The problem is escalating. The heady days of the Green Revolution of the 1970's are over. Barring a major scientific breakthrough, the world's ability to produce food has peaked. The major causes include the excessive use of underground water supplies [world-wide, water tables are dropping], peak oil has caused an increase in the use—and price—of natural gas, from which most fertilizers are made, and the uncertainty of climate change has made a successful harvest more “iffy” than ever. Increased crop yields from genetically modified crops have, at least in terms of the Big Three grains [corn, wheat, and rice], largely peaked as well. [Although increased yields can still be expected in other crops. I've read recent articles on yield improvements in potatoes and African bananas].
More troubling is the recent projection that global warming could cause the Arctic to become ice-free by 2013. Besides the obvious hazard of releasing increasing amounts of methane hydrates, which would further accelerate global warming, the melt could wreck havoc with a species of zooplankton called copepods which live beneath the Arctic ice and form a vital link in the Arctic food chain, which, in turn, links to the oceans world-wide. We should have some idea of the extent of the damage in about five years.
If you have a chance to see this, it's well worthwhile:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/oceans/locations/arctic/
A quick look at copepods:
http://marine-life.suite101.com/article.cfm/copepods
A quick look at the Arctic ecosystem:
http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/arctic/ecosystem.html
The best single book available on the world's food supply:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Food-Paul-Roberts/dp/0618606238/
0
Comments
Shame it is too little too late for the majority of the population.
Thank you for this extremely important post and thank you for all the links.
The global food crisis we're experiencing has the power to destabilize human civilization and it has the power to do so very quickly. This is the one issue that actually frightens me. The speed with which things could deteriorate and the unpredictable nature of human reaction to desperation (i.e. riots, looting, etc.) chills me to the bone. So I need to educate myself about this issue and I appreciate your bringing it up and offering the resources you have.
Thank you for your kind response.
And, although my vacation is coming to a quick end, and I had promised to forswear posting for a while, I will make an exception and do a little “double dipping,” as we used to say.
I would certainly agree that, of the problems humanity now faces, the food problem is the one that has received the least attention, probably because it's also the one that's the toughest to solve. I have spent quite some time ruminating about this one, and it's the one problem for which I can honestly find no viable options.
First, to put things in some sort of perspective. We are in the process of entering and entirely new age. I have optimistically called this the Age of Limits, under the assumption that humanity will actually survive to have future historians. That may not actually turn out to be true, but to think otherwise would be to simply give up, and I'd prefer not to do that just yet, thank you very much.
It is somewhat as though humanity were white-water rafting, and we are approaching a confluence caused by four major factors, any one of which by itself would be cause enough for concern, but, in combination, they indeed signal some dire straits ahead.
It takes a while for the actual depth of the problem to really sink in. We are in uncharted waters, and there is precious little time for mistakes.
The first problem everyone knows about: global warming. At this point, feed-back loops have kicked in, and a global rise in temperature of 1-2 degrees C. is unavoidable. A rise of 3 degrees would be almost certain catastrophe.
Sciencedaily.com is generally a good source for non-specialists like myself. For example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128104533.htm
Some documentaries:
“The Day the Oceans Boiled”--This is somewhat dated, but the broad outline is sound.
http://www.tvdox.com/prog_TDTOB.html
“Dimming the Sun”--A bit more recent, and a nice complement to “The Day the Oceans Boiled.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
The BBC series “Earth—the Climate Wars” is the most recent that I have, and is excellent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1288814/
Books that I would recommend are:
http://www.amazon.com/Plan-B-3-0-Mobilizing-Civilization/dp/0393065898/
http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Climate-Change-2nd/dp/1858281059/
http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-Revolution-America/dp/0374166854/
In order to reverse—not just halt, but revers—the effects of global warming, humanity will have to essentially plant enough trees to equal the carbon sequestering effects of the Amazon rainforest. I don't see that happening any time soon, but that's the scale of the problem. Boggles the mind.
This is the most promising scientific alternative:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2784227.stm
... but it comes with a price tag in the neighborhood of 14 trillion dollars.
The second major problem is peak oil. I think people are now beginning to catch on in a big way to the fact that we are now approaching the end to a finite resource. In some sense, this is good news because it will necessitate a shift to renewable energy sources. Not really good enough, though; there's still more than enough carbon locked up in fossil fuels to fry the earth for a few million years.
Best documentaries I've seen include:
“A Crude Awakening”
http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
“Crude”
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_100208.html
“Escape from Suburbia,” and “The End of Suburbia”
http://escapefromsuburbia.com/
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
“Oil Apocalypse Now?”
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyemonday/2008/oilnow/
Some books:
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691141193/
http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618562117/
http://www.amazon.com/Partys-Over-Fate-Industrial-Societies/dp/0865715297/
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/0805055762/
http://www.amazon.com/Rising-Powers-Shrinking-Planet-Geopolitics/dp/0805089217/
The third big problem is what everybody's talking about now: the economic crisis. Again, somewhat of a blessing in disguise in terms of global warming: reduced economic activity automatically reduces the amount of carbon dioxide produced, which buys us precious time on that front.
By late 2007, people who knew what to look for could see this one coming:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Money-Reckless-Politics-Capitalism/dp/0143114808/
http://www.amazon.com/Trillion-Dollar-Meltdown-Rollers-Credit/dp/B0019FXH9G/ref
And the updated version [which I haven't read yet, but I hope to by this summer]:
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Trillion-Dollar-Meltdown-Rollers/dp/1586486918/
For keeping current on the economic crisis, the person I follow most closely is David Goldman. This is an example of some of his work:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KA24Dj02.html
... and I will certainly admit a fondness for The Mogambo Guru:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KB05Dj01.html
All of which brings us to the place where we started: food. This is the one that is really getting slipped under the radar, but this is the one that I find most compelling. There is, essentially, no good fix for this one.
The Green Revolution of the 1970's was one of the grandest success stories in all of human history. Food production expanded faster than population growth for the first time since I don't know when, and, except for isolated privations caused by a few droughts here and there, or an occasional war in obscure parts of the world that nobody cared much about anyway, things looked pretty good. This was one area where it just plain made sense to be complacent.
How many people, after all, noted that population increases were about keeping pace with the increases in food production?
The Green Revolution was built on essentially three factors: hybrid seeds, new farm land coming into production, and the wide-spread use of fertilizers and pesticides. Unfortunately, there are now concerns with all three of these factors.
Science has now done about all it can do to increase the yields of the Big Three grains [corn, wheat, and rice]. Although yields from other crops, such as potatoes, can be expected to improve, by and large we cannot expect yield increases from a few years ago to continue. Scientists are now concentrating on genetically modifying plants to be more drought- and pest-resistant, but as far as increasing production goes, we can't hope for much.
It takes about 1,000 units of water to produce 1 unit of grain. Count the zeros. It's not a misprint. Much of the new land that came into production back in the 70's depended on underground water supplies which were used at levels that were not sustainable. World-wide, water tables are dropping at an alarming rate. Add a little urban sprawl and a little road-building, and the net result is a serious decline in land available for crops, starting a few years back and extending into the foreseeable future.
Factor three, fertilizers and pesticides are largely fossil-fuel based. Disregarding the pollution caused by these chemicals, with the decline in oil and natural gas reserves, their price has gone up, reducing the yields where farmers can't afford them, and adding to the price of food where farmers can afford to use them. Disease-resistant genetically modified plants are receiving a great deal of attention from the scientific community these days.
Also worth noting is that the increasing use of biofuels is presently taking land away from food production, although with improved technology this might not be a long-term problem.
Aquaculture? Sure, it helps, but it also comes with sustainability issues.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/challenging-the-aquaculture
One of the big problems with keeping on top of this one is that world-wide there are sooooo many different countries with sooooo many different cultures and soooooo many different micro-climates that it's easy to lose the big picture in the wealth of details.
This is the only documentary that I know of that's worth much:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00fsxq6
... and this is the only really good book that I know of as well:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Food-Paul-Roberts/dp/0618606238/
... probably the best NGO:
http://www.oxfam.org/
Now, the first impression that I get from all of this is that it's off the scale. Nothing, absolutely nothing in all of human history has prepared us for this. This is will call for changes beyond 500 years ago, when Europeans first became aware that the world was round. Like it or not, we are entering an entirely new Age. “Welcome to the Age of Limits,” as I like to tell my students.
My best guess is that in about five years we will have a pretty good idea of how significant these problems really are. It's possible that I am over-stating the case, along with everyone that I have been reading. That is possible.
Five years from now we should know what's really going to happen in the Arctic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080907123702.htm
And from that point, we should have about ten more years to know whether or not we are actually going to be able to solve these problems or not.
And global warming might well turn out to be solvable. Plant a tree, for crying out loud.
Peak oil? We could build a smart grid and use electric cars. This can be done.
The economy? So far, no economic crisis has lasted forever, and I doubt that this one will be the first.
But food? Ah, now there's the rub. It may still be possible to feed everyone, but the American level of caloric intake is simply not sustainable. This is where real sacrifices will have to be made.
As someone far wiser than I am once pointed out, the whole secret of success consists of doing what you can do—and what you can't do, don't sweat. No one deliberately chose to make the world this way. But with deliberate choices, we can change it. Save it, maybe even.
And now, my vacation is over, and I will get back to work ....
Happy sitting!
I am getting real benefit from your posts and the links. It has been some decades since I looked at the famine problem with Prof. Colin Clark in Oxford and argued (against his view of 'plenty') that we would hit a wall within my lifetime - if not his. His argument was that there was enough to meet need but that it was grabbed by greed. It being the early '60s, we were in the middle of the debate on fertility and population which was so cruelly cut short by Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.
May I aske you to change one of the stylkistic tropes that you suggest you use with your students? You say This is completely off-topic but buying in to this 'urban myth' weakens the rest of your elegant prose.
Sums things up quite nicely.
Thank you very much for pointing this out.
Originality has never been out of my strong points.
I would also like to take this opportunity to correct something from my previous post. I said that:
This statement was not only a bit flippant, but it's also somewhat misleading.
When I wrote that, I was really thinking about the financial markets, not the “real” economy. It would be far more accurate to say that the financial markets will eventually stabilize, which is a far cry from saying that they will return to levels of the recent past, which is what my earlier statement would imply. In the United States, the stock market didn't return to 1929 levels until some time in the 1950's. I would expect a similar scenario to repeat itself in our current situation.
Furthermore, it's doubtful that twentieth-century levels of prosperity will ever return. The material wealth of the twentieth century was essentially built on an ocean of oil, and we are currently looking at the end of a finite resource. Still, essentially every business model in the world assumes a cheap, abundant source of energy, which has become a chimera. And to that extent, every stock in the world's markets are over-valued.
The world's economy will inevitably face a “false start” recovery: at some point, economic activity will increase, only to be faced with the reality of dwindling petroleum supplies. This is a point that virtually every market analyst has failed to take into account, except Kevin Phillips—who is not even really a market analyst in the first place.
So, the upshot is that we can expect a stabilization of the economy [and financial markets], but it probably won't be any time soon, and it's also doubtful that over-all levels of material wealth will return to previous levels.
On my way out, I'd also like to plug one of my favorite news sources:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
There is no doubt that things could tip that way. After all, it's a lot easier to be cooperative when we 're looking at a growing field of dreams than it is when we're all scrambling for a life boat.
Michael Klare is perhaps the best-known authority on the political ramifications of scarcity:
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/0805055762/
http://www.amazon.com/Rising-Powers-Shrinking-Planet-Geopolitics/dp/0805089217/
Nonetheless, as an old song says, it doesn't have to be that way. Both Lester Brown and Thomas Friedman have laid out viable alternative scenarios for the future:
http://www.amazon.com/Plan-B-3-0-Mobilizing-Civilization/dp/0393065898/
http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-Revolution-America/dp/0374166854/
One of the things that strikes me is that both Klare and Friedman emphasize the importance of China-U.S. partnership in the coming decades. If China and the United States leads, the world will follow. With the election of Obama, the United States shows every sign of resuming a role in world leadership; and I have been nothing short of astonished at the changes made in China over the just the last few years. [I live in China, and so I have a chance to observe these things closely.] Sure, China is still probably the world's most polluted place to live, but it certainly seems to me that the tide has turned on the environmental front and that there is a sea change in attitudes that is just starting to take shape.
This is probably the best-known example, but there is a host of lesser-known stories to be found:
http://virtualreview.org/china/zoom/571666/cnn-chinas-green-wall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Wall_of_China
The hope is to go as green as possible as quickly as possible. There will be no need to go to war over the last five gallons of gasoline if our energy needs are being supplied by the sun. Renewable energy is a potential growth industry which is, in fact, poised to take off—we need it, both in terms of the environment and in terms of its ability to provide jobs. Not only that, but the technology is rapidly improving and is becoming increasingly cost effective.
But, ah ... that food problem. I can see where Victory Gardens might be coming back ... and, one of the few things I advocate is vegetarianism. In terms of global food supplies, a meat-based diet is horribly inefficient. [Be warned: for a vegetarian, B-complex vitamin supplements are essential.]
So ..... let's sit. Watch our breaths. We just might be able to get out of this yet without too much damage ...
In the past 20 years that I have lived in my small town, we have had three different 'local exchange' schemes: local barter of goods and services. At the same time, credit has exploded.
Verb. sap.
@ Ragyaba,
My apologies for the poor typing. I have a dyslexic keyboard.
I am most envious of your place of residence. China is one place where I would like to live out the next century as it takes its true place as a leading world power. My history lecturer from the University of Lille and a pupil of the philosopher Alain commented, in 1962, that Europe had been saved from Roman decadence by the arrival of 'barbarians' because they vigour and new ideas. She asked where we thought this age's 'outsider' ideas would come from to save us from our decadence. She suggested that we should consider China.
Yes, they have loads to teach us about humanitarianism and caring about our fellow men, don't they?
Palzang
I cannot see any nation occupying the high ground on those. Can you? China, at least, appears to be learning, so they must have understood that there is more to do. Precisely like the US a century from its own revolutionary origins. I find it fascinating and, sometimes, often, heart-breaking. It's a "watch This Space" situation.
Palzang
"Motes and beams", Palzang.
Do you honestly believe and, with the clear view of a Buddhist practitioner, maintain that the record of the US/UK coalition gives us any ethical edge? Can we show a better human rights record than anyone else? Have we forgotten (or forgiven ourselves for) the Trail of Tears, the Amritsar massacre, Guantanamo Bay, rendition, suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Patriot Act, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Over the past decades, since the Cultural Revolution, China has changed and keeps on changing. Can we say the same?
If I were Chinese, I would scoff at the Western cabal preaching at me. It is only 100 years ago that the West was flooding China with opium, deliberately addicting a whole population, in exchange for silver. I would point at the amount of state intervention in industry, finance and commerce. I would mention the levels of corruption evidenced by Enron and others.
As HHDL has said for so long, China must be engaged in dialogue, round the table, not with threats and insults.
Is it anything more than self-serving hypocrisy to criticise China over Taiwan when we blockade Cuba, or to throw up our hands in horror at the treatment of Tibetans when we sit on our hands while the Kurds are gassed by Iraq (allies at the time) and massacred by Turkey (current ally)?
Yes. Imperfect, true. But America didn't murder 60 million of its own citizens in a "cultural revolution."
The atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives most likely. A mainland invasion would have devastated both sides. And yes, Lincoln overstepped his powers by suspending Habeus Corupus in the Civil war. Also, while incidents like the Trail of Tears are shameful, genocide was never a government policy.
Do you think the Cultural Revolution was a good thing? The economy might be freer in China than it was previously, but as far as social and political freedom, not a whole lot has changed.
All the while, the US was not interested in cutting up China, but instead wanted an open door policy.
In America? I thought you were for more government regulation and intervention.
Which makes us morally equivalent to China's communist government how?
I'm against the blockade of Cuba as well, but I hardly find Cuba and Taiwan to be equivalent.
When it comes to toppling Saddam, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Kurds aren't being gassed anymore and they don't live under a dictatorial regime anymore thanks to America.
I think it is vital that our young people have a sense of the value and power of our history. We need the pride of place and, at the same time, we need to understand that we inherit a story that is stuffed with both heroism and horror. we also need to learn the hard truth that what appears to be justified or even worthy to us may look very different from elsewhere.
Just to take the example of the nuclear attack on Japan. It is the commonly accepted justification by the Allies that more deaths were avoided, just as you say. It remains an undeniable fact that we are the only nations to have used nuclear weapons. So, when we try to stop, say, Iran from developing them, what right have we?
We also tend to find it easier to excuse ourselves than I think is useful.
A ninety year old man in a nursing home has a picture of his mother as a young woman on his dresser. It is a shrine of sorts for him.
A young woman named Tina comes in and in his presence wants to know about the woman depicted in the portrait. When she learns that the woman is long since dead, Tina takes the portrait and smashes it on the floor, saying "She's not real. She doesn't even exist. You're not doing yourself any good trying to hold onto that image. Let's do away with it once and for all."
Is Tina acting on anyone's behalf other than her own here?
It's a good story. It's a good question.
We build our own altars of the mind. We build them for the best of reasons. We all do that. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Nazis, Communists, Democrats and Republicans. All of us do this. And generations upon generations have fought and killed to preserve the sanctity of their own collective altars. Amazing. How can anyone think clearly when their fists are clenched?
We build our own altars. Out of stuff that the mind puts into the mind.
Have you ever once heard anyone say, “Hey, you know, my religious beliefs really aren't the best in the world. If you really want to have a good religion, why don't you go over there and believe what those guys do? Now they've got a good religion.”
We all think that our opinions are correct. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Nazis, Communists, Democrats and Republicans. The same is true for our religious beliefs. They must be true. Why else would we have them?
And if we already know the truth, seeking more information is pretty much pointless, isn't it? Why bother looking for the truth if you already know what it is?
But it's more simple that way. It makes it easier to think. “They” are bad. “We” are good. It's comfortable. It's nice to to be able to rely on a good Tibetan martyr story when life gets you down, or it's nice to think that the Great Leap Forward is still going on, or that the next Cultural Revolution is just around the corner. It's comfortable. How many spiritual teachers have ever advised anyone to just find a comfort zone and stay there?
Think back about the opinions you had twenty years ago. Are the same as you have now? Did you believe that you knew the truth then? What makes you think you know the truth now?
And how and when will this cycle of bitterness and recrimination ever stop?
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts ...
“Look how he abused me and beat me,
How he threw me down and robbed me.”
Live with such thoughts
And you live in hate.
“Look how he abused me and beat me,
How the threw me down and robbed me.”
Abandon such thoughts,
And live in love.
In this world,
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
We build our own altars. But what the mind puts in, the mind can take out.
Our spiritual progress pretty much dead-ends with our last serious question, doesn't it?
And now I'm getting much too busy to do any serious posting for a while.
Be open-minded. The world really isn't the way you think it is. It's not the way I think it is, either. Without that understanding, we could never learn anything. But be skeptical, too. The world doesn't need another damned fool.
Think I'll sit for a while.
Be mindful.
What could it hurt?
Actually, yes.
So - sure - please go and believe someone else's religion. We'd like that.
As for the Chinese, yes, they have changed. They've become more capitalistic. That's better? Have they stopped treated their citizens, and the citizens of other countries that they control (Tibetans, Uigurs, etc.), like cattle? NO!!! From my point of view, there is not a single thing that we can learn from the Chinese except how not to be.
I also must take issue with your incredibly naive view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dropping those bombs did literally save millions of lives. What should we have dropped, lotus flowers?! Maybe that would have convinced the Japanese to give up. It was war. In war bad things happen. If I recall, the RAF was involved in the fire bombings that devastated entire German cities and killed many, many more people that the atom bombs did. Did you forget that little part of the equation? Plus, brave hearts that they were, they volunteered to take the night missions, leaving the much more dangerous day missions to the Americans. So we're the only country to drop nuclear weapons. Do you also remember that we were allies in that war? What one did, all the Allies all did. That's how alliances work. How can you just say we did it? Oh, those nasty, nasty Americans! Like the British had no clue. The British were also at war with Japan and no doubt would have dropped the bomb if they had had one. I wish the whole war had never happened, just as I wish all wars had never happened, but singling out that one instance just because we used a much more powerful device than had ever been used is simplistic and beyond naive. I'm sure the people who were incinerated in their beds in Dresden would have a different view of the whole thing that you. They'd much have preferred to still be alive, and it doesn't make a whit of difference if you're killed by an incendiary bomb or a nuclear bomb. Dead is dead.
I do everything I can to bring peace into this world, but you can't do that without understanding the suffering of the world. To do that one must practice equanimity. It's nice to have someone to blame for the world's troubles, but to pin it all on the Americans is absurd.
Palzang
Palzang
Of course, you are right that much has changed in the past 2oo-odd years of the Republic, just as they have in the UK - despite the strange view that we often receive from our friends in the US that we are still ruled by "a king with a big chin and a plain wife" as Dickens put it.
The point that I am trying to make, a long way behind HHDL, is that only dialogue will change what is going on, be it in China or in our secret prisons ('our', I say) And dialogue requires respect.
The way in which citizens of one particular 'nation' ascribe goodness to themselves and badness to those they dislike - and then pin it on 'nationhood'. The answer could be (as those of us who embrace the international ideal maintain) the progress towards ionternational agreement and the consequent loosening of the hold of national parochialism.
As Nurse Edith Cavell said, before being shot as a spy, "Patriotism is not enough. I have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone."
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KB26Dj02.html
Ypip, Haiti is almost a non-participant in the global economy as far as I know. I don't understand how you think it's relevant economically to North America.
Haiti is part of North America and the poorest nation of it. I was referring to how foreign policy affects economy. That’s the reason for such a premonition.
Rampant violence and political instability has long plagued it. Access to food is actually worse than it was in the 1980s as the country finds itself struggling with skyrocketing malnutrion.
Already the poorest country in the Americas, Haiti saw its economy shrink by a staggering 15% in 2008, just right before the mortgage crisis hit the United States. 2008 was a year when Haiti was battered by three hurricanes and a tropical storm as well.
Now lets look at it another way. American history and its economy was (and probably still is) being effected by the affairs of Cuba. Cuba is a part of North America. We are affected by our neighbors economically and politically regardless whether they are rich or poor. Another example would be Mexico – illegal immigration causing an underground labor force which disrupts Canadian and US payroll employment. Same thing is going on with illegal immigrants from Cuba and Haiti. We are affected by our neighbors.
Historically, Haiti was the basis of the British North American slave economy of the Thirteen Colonies and later the United States. Haiti is a special circumstance in terms of North America’s economy and politics particularly for this historical reason. But I’m merely basing all of it on premonition.
The U.S. National Academy Of Sciences concludes that Haiti was the key conduit for the introduction of HIV/AIDS to the continent. That is because it is the poorest nation of North America. As far as the majority of people on the continent are concerned, Haiti isn’t even a part of North America, and that’s a problem that surely has a profound effect on the North American economy.
Following the 2004 ouster of Haiti’s elected constitutional authorities an unelected interim regime worked with international donors to put in place a program of privatization and heightened neo-liberalism, erasing gains made over the prior decade. The post-coup privatization and forced budget adjustments prior to 2004 meant the laying off of thousands of workers in Haiti. All of this affects the North American economy. A tumor starts out small and grows.
It is more than coincidental that Governor General Michelle Jean would privately discuss Haiti for close to an hour with President Obama during his ‘short’ visit to Canada. Now he’s invited the Gov. General to Washington to discuss the situation further, along with MP’s over economic and social issues. I saw that as a positive signal - a diplomatic gest of a pre-season game maybe.
Most of Canada’s Haitian community resides in Toronto and Montreal. A community is the basis of an economy. Jean is ethnically Haitian. Many Haitians were descended from Kenya shipped there by slave traders. President Obama has Kenyan roots.
The persistence of poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean has been an important campaign issue in numerous presidential elections of late, especially in Haiti and Nicaragua. Debt burdens of such countries combined with harmful economic policies imposed on them through loan and debt relief programs by rich country creditors severely limit resources available to governments to invest in basic services such as health care and education. This has a ripple effect that in turn becomes a ricochet effect on rich city streets such as New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal through gang violence and underground economies chipping away at the legal structure. Poor nations can have a profound effect on its neighbours depending on policies.
How we react to Haiti affects the North American economy just as much as how the U.S. and Canada reacted to Venezuela, Panama, Honduras, and so on. I hope we’re passed that. Promises haven’t been kept according to the Dominican Republic. Such policies, or lack of them eventually affect our economies. I hope that clarified my opinion a bit more for you.
Metta.
Palzang
Seriously, Jason, if we don't address and help those who are starving and dying of thirst, who will care when we starve and dehydrate?
We can talk about Haiti in terms of morality, human suffering, or international relations. I'm not an advocate of ignoring Haiti by any means. Again, I'm just saying that from an economic standpoint it's mostly irrelevant.
My comment was not directed at the idea of trying to address and help those who are starving and dying of thirst, but to some of the specious arguments being presented here.
I'd like to thank you also, ragyaba
I have been very ignorant of all these topics and issues in my life to date and I'm grateful to be educated so this forms part of my awareness.
Your perspectives and sharing of information is very much appreciated by this one
_/\_
This is a great forum.
Thankyou.
Interesting, thanks, Ypip.
Prayers for everyone.
Bows.
ragyaba:
I was hoping you could help me if you are still reading and around.
You have presented the issues, analysis and synopsis very well and I'm very grateful for that education.
Can you share your opinion please as to - what individuals might be able to do? I know you have linked to a lot of reference sites but I was hoping for a shortcut dummy guide I guess.
And what do you think about joining NGOs, working within them?
Anyway to all that you say the only other slant I can think of is the spirituality slant.
The origination certainly of the financial crisis and even of the many wars, and the huge inequality between haves and have-nots - including those on the brink as Ypip has pointed out - is still at source as the Buddha taught:
ignorance, greed, hatred and delusion.
I have a sense of that side but was hoping you could help me on the former questions.
Many thanks,
Abu
Sorry to have taken so long to reply. I tend to post when I'm on vacation, and I have a little time to think more carefully about what I'm saying. Otherwise I have this tendency to fall into the old “post in haste, re-post at leisure syndrome.”
As it is, this falls more into the “post in haste” group.
Soooooooooo ............
Solutions.
Humanity does, indeed, seem to be at one of those old, proverbial crossroads, and, without putting too fine a point on it, we could possibly be the most important generation who have ever lived ... because, conceivably, we might be the last.
When I look at these problems, the first thing that strikes me is that they are all interconnected. The shift to a green economy ameliorates global warming, the economic crisis, peak oil, and global food supplies. As a planet, we simply must move away from fossil fuels with all due speed. I would suggest that it would be difficult to over-emphasize this point. Thankfully, the world does seem to be moving in this direction. Over the last few years, China has begun to move on the environmental front, and with Obama as President there is good reason to be hopeful on this point.
On a personal level, I would suggest is that this is a time for mindfulness, not fanaticism. After all, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Take everything I say with a grain of salt ... do a little reading, do a little thinking. The solutions you find might be a lot better than the solutions I find. Tell me about them.
“Fanatic,” according to my handy little pocket dictionary, is another name for “damned fool.” Right now, we really don't need any more damned fools. We have enough of them.
I would also suggest that we would want to encourage things that bring us together and beware of people who encourage side-issues that tear us apart. Like it or not, humanity is entering into a stressful period of time, and we will all need to encourage each other as best as possible.
One of the few things that I advocate is vegetarianism. Americans especially are hooked on gasoline and meat. Reducing one's consumption of meat is good for everyone. [But, that, too is not a clear-cut black-and-white issue. If you go vegetarian, you will need to supplement your diet with added B-complex vitamins ... and thereby indirectly consume more fossil fuels.]
A friend of mine back in the States is planning a greenhouse. It will help him feed his family, and he will use less fossil fuels. That's his contribution.
Maybe you want to get involved with an NGO. Fine. But they're not all equally reliable, and many of them represent what I would consider to be side-issues, which distract more than they focus.
Someone far wiser than I once told me, “The whole secret of success is to do what you can do. What you can't do, don't sweat.” Personally, I think that humanity has a chance to pull out of this. Maybe not a good chance, but a chance. We'll have a much better idea in about ten years' time.
And, remember, I could be waaaay wrong. I've been wrong before.
If you've a mind to do some reading, these are a couple of books I'd recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Food-Paul-Roberts/dp/0547085974/
[I have the 2008 version]
http://www.amazon.com/Plan-3-0-Substantially-Revised-Civilization/dp/0393065898/
... which is available online here:
http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/2008/winter2008/lester-r--brown--plan-b-3-0--mobilizing-to-save-civilization--w-w--norton--2008-.html
or here:
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/pb3book.pdf
Do what you can. Can anyone really ask you to do more?
Thankyou ragyaba, it helps immeasurably. When you have a moment, no rush perhaps you can tell me what NGOs you personally like (and yes I will be of the type to re-verify through experience and appreciate the context of what you are sharing)
With deep gratitude.
Gassho.
But ...
In many ways, hunger is a catch-22 type of situation.
Families which are trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of poverty tend to have more children because children because children are a poor person's version of social security. The more you have, the more likely at least one of them will succeed in finding a way to take care of his [or her] parents when they reach old age. In this scenario, children are seen as being economic assets—and the more, the better.
But, a host of studies indicate that a key point to reducing population growth is the education of women. Intelligent, upwardly women tend to have fewer children because they are more capable of providing for their own retirement. In this scenario children may be important for social reasons, but are, economically, lovable little liabilities.
So, assuming that you have limited resources, where do you spend the money? You could focus on education, which provides a long-term solution, or you could focus on direct aid for the truly needy, which has short-term benefits, but does little, if anything, to break the cycle.
It seems to me that the problem of world hunger tends to get shunted aside because it becomes incredibly complex. People are more comfortable living in a simple black-and-white world.
NGO's that I have dealt with in the past are:
http://www.foodfirst.org/
http://www.oxfam.org/
But it's important to keep a big picture in mind. Everything is connected.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189263