to drshow@wamu.org
Putting off discussion of elimination of nuclear weapons
This is a nod to Israel. If we are ever going to talk about eliminating nuclear weapons, we will need to have honesty and transparency about who actually has weapons already.
Because they prefer to keep this question of whether they have nuclear weapons as an official secret, any conversation among nations about intentions and actions regarding abolition of nuclear weapons might be seen by participants and observers as a sham. So, we see no conversation, rather than direct unwanted attention to Israeli policy.
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
To a Healthy and Peaceful Life
Is there a direct relationship between people's willingness to treat beings as things, as when we put flesh on a plate (phycho-pathology) and the tendency toward decay of the body (physiological pathology).
And what relation is there between the inclination to eat animals on the one hand and the tendency to see natural resources both as something scarce that must be grabbed or controlled and at the same time something to be squandered?
When someone wants to go to war, they will turn their attention to recruiting and exhorting youth (subjects of their own lives) into fodder for cannon (objects or cogs in a machine) for example.
According to Socrates, we cannot live a peaceful and healthy life if we pursue a desire to eat animals. The environmental damage, adverse impact on our health and the resulting scarcity of resources and impulse to war to get our neighbors' pasture (oil) will prevent it.
We are eating precariously high on the food chain:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
A Heart for Cheney
A comment on the web about a famous and influential warmonger who had surgery recently:
Thomas Hatch (Seen_It_All) wrote: < br />
It was 'most recommended', this comment.
Thomas Hatch (Seen_It_All) wrote: < br />
Why now give a heart to a man who has managed to live for 71 years without one? Mon Mar 26 2012 05:03:27 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
It was 'most recommended', this comment.
Re: Philippe Van Parijs - Basic Income
To BBC Business News on Facebook:
A team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al -- in 1997, estimated the value of natural resource wealth at about $33 trillion per year. If we were to charge fees to those who take natural resources or put pollution, then share the proceeds of these fees equally, this estimate suggests that each person might receive about $600 per month. Of course, this estimate was an estimate only. Some things were left out of the calculus because they were just too hard to put a number on. And we might decide to NOT give the money for personal use only. We might eliminate or significantly reduce other taxes, but require each citizen to put a portion of their share of the proceeds from environmental impact fees toward public programs that they deem (and that a large fraction of other citizens believe) are worthy of public support. It is likely that abusive police forces or inadequate schools would NOT qualify to receive funds under such a system, since relatively few people would say that they promote the public interest. In this way, we could respect PUBLIC property rights (equal sharing of natural wealth) along with private property rights, and thereby end extreme poverty in the world AND manage environmental impacts in the most efficient and fair way.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/
A team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al -- in 1997, estimated the value of natural resource wealth at about $33 trillion per year. If we were to charge fees to those who take natural resources or put pollution, then share the proceeds of these fees equally, this estimate suggests that each person might receive about $600 per month. Of course, this estimate was an estimate only. Some things were left out of the calculus because they were just too hard to put a number on. And we might decide to NOT give the money for personal use only. We might eliminate or significantly reduce other taxes, but require each citizen to put a portion of their share of the proceeds from environmental impact fees toward public programs that they deem (and that a large fraction of other citizens believe) are worthy of public support. It is likely that abusive police forces or inadequate schools would NOT qualify to receive funds under such a system, since relatively few people would say that they promote the public interest. In this way, we could respect PUBLIC property rights (equal sharing of natural wealth) along with private property rights, and thereby end extreme poverty in the world AND manage environmental impacts in the most efficient and fair way.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Squandering Natural Resources Has Consequences
Comment to Meet the Press on Facebook:
The same rock formations that hold natural gas and oil also trap helium. Unlike fossil fuels, there are NO substitutes for helium. When the reserves are gone, we will have to do without. This will impact our modern economy in ways that most people are completely unaware of. (I read that NASA uses large quantities of helium, but makes no effort to recycle it.)
Rapid depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, through fracking, not only pollutes groundwater and makes transition to alternatives more difficult, it also destroys the geologic formations that have held the gas for so long. Why is there no public discussion about whether and by how much we should slow down our depletion of these limited resources, for the sake of future generations? A rational policy would assess fees to industry when they extract resources and put pollution. Fees attached to extraction of natural gas should be higher for those fields that have higher helium content.
All fee proceeds should be shared equally among all people.
I really would like to know, why are these issues and ideas not discussed by the news media? Squandering natural resources has consequences. Future generations (along with younger members of today's society) will suffer as our fossil fuel-based civilization collapses. Or we avert the collapse by developing a respect of PUBLIC property rights and by accounting for economic externalities.
We can solve the major problems facing our civilization. We will have to talk about the systemic flaws underlying those problems. Are we willing to engage in a public discourse about systemic flaws and their solution?
Equal sharing of natural wealth makes the world's biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
The same rock formations that hold natural gas and oil also trap helium. Unlike fossil fuels, there are NO substitutes for helium. When the reserves are gone, we will have to do without. This will impact our modern economy in ways that most people are completely unaware of. (I read that NASA uses large quantities of helium, but makes no effort to recycle it.)
Rapid depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, through fracking, not only pollutes groundwater and makes transition to alternatives more difficult, it also destroys the geologic formations that have held the gas for so long. Why is there no public discussion about whether and by how much we should slow down our depletion of these limited resources, for the sake of future generations? A rational policy would assess fees to industry when they extract resources and put pollution. Fees attached to extraction of natural gas should be higher for those fields that have higher helium content.
All fee proceeds should be shared equally among all people.
I really would like to know, why are these issues and ideas not discussed by the news media? Squandering natural resources has consequences. Future generations (along with younger members of today's society) will suffer as our fossil fuel-based civilization collapses. Or we avert the collapse by developing a respect of PUBLIC property rights and by accounting for economic externalities.
We can solve the major problems facing our civilization. We will have to talk about the systemic flaws underlying those problems. Are we willing to engage in a public discourse about systemic flaws and their solution?
Equal sharing of natural wealth makes the world's biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Faster drilling today means more disruption and hardship tomorrow
Should the program be called "Some Things Considered"?
There's no mention on NPR of the fact that faster drilling for oil today means faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. This will mean a more difficult transition when the wells finally run dry or become so unproductive that extraction is prohibitively expensive.
Why is there no mention of the fact (this is not opinion, but fact) that more rapid depletion of natural resources today means a more difficult life for our children and their offspring in years to come?
How can this essential fact be deemed not relevant to the public discourse?
We are living in an UN-sustainable civilization. Public policy that reduces the rate of taking of natural resources would tend to promote stability over the long term.
A truly democratic society would adopt policies that ensure that resources are not depleted at rates that exceed what most people would say are acceptable. A truly democratic society would not allow levels of pollution to exceed what most people say is acceptable
There are proposals that promise a sustainable civilization where abject poverty is abolished. They involve an equal sharing of natural wealth. Why are they not mentioned at all?
A sustainable and just civilization:
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 18:37:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
There's no mention on NPR of the fact that faster drilling for oil today means faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. This will mean a more difficult transition when the wells finally run dry or become so unproductive that extraction is prohibitively expensive.
Why is there no mention of the fact (this is not opinion, but fact) that more rapid depletion of natural resources today means a more difficult life for our children and their offspring in years to come?
How can this essential fact be deemed not relevant to the public discourse?
We are living in an UN-sustainable civilization. Public policy that reduces the rate of taking of natural resources would tend to promote stability over the long term.
A truly democratic society would adopt policies that ensure that resources are not depleted at rates that exceed what most people would say are acceptable. A truly democratic society would not allow levels of pollution to exceed what most people say is acceptable
There are proposals that promise a sustainable civilization where abject poverty is abolished. They involve an equal sharing of natural wealth. Why are they not mentioned at all?
A sustainable and just civilization:
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 18:37:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Address problems we must face together
Seeking six words about race -- Talk of the Nation
*Race is a culturally constructed concept.*
Would we be better off if we were to see ourselves as members of the human community and larger community of life, rather than as members of one or another socially constructed racial category?
This is not to deny the extra burden carried by those with dark skin in USA.
Would it be better for race relations if we were to spend more time talking about the challenges that face the entire human community AND possible solutions.
Re possible solutions, we could END extreme poverty throughout the world AND control environmental impacts and manage natural resource wealth for a sustainable civilization if we resolve to respect PUBLIC property rights along with private property rights. (Natural resource wealth should be shared equally.)
NPR and other mainstream news organizations do not mention public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth. Nor do they mention that we are living in an unsustainable civilization.
How might addressing problems that we face as a human community reduce tensions related to our various group identities.
How might reducing disparity of wealth reduce racial tensions?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 15:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
*Race is a culturally constructed concept.*
Would we be better off if we were to see ourselves as members of the human community and larger community of life, rather than as members of one or another socially constructed racial category?
This is not to deny the extra burden carried by those with dark skin in USA.
Would it be better for race relations if we were to spend more time talking about the challenges that face the entire human community AND possible solutions.
Re possible solutions, we could END extreme poverty throughout the world AND control environmental impacts and manage natural resource wealth for a sustainable civilization if we resolve to respect PUBLIC property rights along with private property rights. (Natural resource wealth should be shared equally.)
NPR and other mainstream news organizations do not mention public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth. Nor do they mention that we are living in an unsustainable civilization.
How might addressing problems that we face as a human community reduce tensions related to our various group identities.
How might reducing disparity of wealth reduce racial tensions?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 15:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Systemic flaws persist: News reporting is not complete without some mention of economic externalities
My comment in response to the NPR ombudsman's introduction of the new Ethics Guidelines
The guidelines say that news reporting will be "as complete as possible".
Economic externalities are not discussed on NPR air. Externalities skew all buying decisions and business models toward more harm to the environment. Externalities mean more pollution and faster depletion of resources than what would be the case if environmental impacts were properly accounted for in the price structure.
These facts make externalities and options for efficiently and fairly accounting for them issues of public concern.
One efficient and fair way to remedy this systemic flaw is to charge a fee to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the fee proceeds to the people at large.
(We should remedy this flaw so that prices will accurately reflect all the costs of production. When prices tell the whole truth about real costs, buyers will be able to make well-informed decisions and societies will be able to manage natural resource wealth in a way that is sustainable or that avoids instability caused by rapid depletion of resources.)
What other ways of accounting for externalities have been proposed? What are the relative merits and demerits of the various alternatives?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sat Mar 17 2012 15:58:10 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
The guidelines say that news reporting will be "as complete as possible".
Economic externalities are not discussed on NPR air. Externalities skew all buying decisions and business models toward more harm to the environment. Externalities mean more pollution and faster depletion of resources than what would be the case if environmental impacts were properly accounted for in the price structure.
These facts make externalities and options for efficiently and fairly accounting for them issues of public concern.
One efficient and fair way to remedy this systemic flaw is to charge a fee to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the fee proceeds to the people at large.
(We should remedy this flaw so that prices will accurately reflect all the costs of production. When prices tell the whole truth about real costs, buyers will be able to make well-informed decisions and societies will be able to manage natural resource wealth in a way that is sustainable or that avoids instability caused by rapid depletion of resources.)
What other ways of accounting for externalities have been proposed? What are the relative merits and demerits of the various alternatives?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sat Mar 17 2012 15:58:10 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Monday, March 12, 2012
Accounting for externalities means reduced food waste
A post to NPR Cosmos and Culture blog again:
Taking a Bite Out Of Energy Consumption
As long as we allow economic externalities to persist, we will have an economy that gives everyone perverse incentives to do the wrong thing.
Food is sold in our distorted markets at an artificially low price. Externalities mean that much of the resource depletion costs and pollution costs associated with food production are not reflected in the price structure.
What we call a free market cannot effectively favor the most environmentally responsible players if these environmental costs are hidden, if they are not part of the cost-benefit analysis.
So called 'free' markets are actually corrupt markets when externalities are involved and where commons or public property rights are not respected.
Accounting for externalities will make the price of food go up. When we have to pay more for food, we will be more careful not to waste it.
When we account for externalities, ALL industries will have to pay for environmental impacts. Then they will be more interested in reducing those impacts.
We have seen growing awareness of the persistent assault by corporations on ecological health and the corporation has become quite the villain in our contemporary struggle-for-social-justice narrative.
Corporations have always been externalizing machines, but now availability of the easier sources of natural resources is fading fast, and the more difficult sources are being tapped, while global demand continues to grow. This portends a day of reckoning, when resources to sustain civilization are no longer available.
In this context, the 'more difficult source' of petroleum and natural gas is the material derived from fracking, which involves injecting deadly poisons into the ground, where they can mix with groundwater. The 'difficulty' is shifted to the future generations who will be faced with polluted water.
Another difficulty is that a possible source of helium for future generations (those layers of shale and clay) is destroyed in the process of breaking up those layers. (Why there is no mention of the fact that this process squanders helium reserves is a complete mystery to me.)
When externalities are accounted for, the profit-seeking tendency of the corporation matches the interests of the larger society AND the larger community of life: Effort is put into reducing environmental impacts, to the benefit of the corporation AND everyone else.
Whether we talk in terms of economic externalities or neglect of public and commons property rights, we need to correct this serious defect in our economic system. We need to start accounting for externalities, but we have a news media that doesn't even mention externalities in their economics reporting. Nor do they mention public property rights in relation to natural resource wealth when they report on poverty and disparity of wealth generally.
When we take account of externalities, the increased incentive to seek ways to reduce environmental impacts will mean a multitude of little changes and many big changes, in all industries. In relation to management of our food supply, higher food prices will mean that we will see changes ranging from restaurants offering smaller portions to save money, to more shoppers asking produce managers for discounts on their grade 'B' produce, to shifts toward less or no meat consumption, an so on...
Biodiversity as a public good:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/respect-public-property-rights.html
If natural resource wealth is recognized as belonging to all, then the proceeds from these fees (a monetary representation of this wealth) will be shared among all the world's people. Although accounting for externalities will mean price increases for food and other things, the people at large will be better off because this representation of natural wealth will be shared equally (no one will be impoverished by the policy change).
And we will all be better off because the economic system and our global society will be made sustainable through the appropriate economic incentives toward resource efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
This paradigm shift toward respect of public or commons property rights along with private property will mean a moderating of the boom and bust of the business 'cycle', and it will mean a potential cure for that existential instability that we see as the arc of civilization of thrive and collapse. These two instabilities are really the same phenomenon seen at different scales.
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Mon Mar 12 2012 19:06:07 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/11/148138657/taking-a-bite-out-of-energy-consumption
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Accounting for externalities would help reduce food waste, too
Adapted from a comment to the NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture Blog:
Taking a Bite Out Of Energy Consumption
I would echo what Chad said about raising animals with intent to kill and eat them. Feeding grain to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
(From a metaphysical standpoint (or is it an ethical standpoint?), we might consider that the frame of mind that says that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and all are commodities, that they are things for humans to use as means to our ends, is a fundamental, existential error. Exploitation of animals means denying freedom and imposing discomfort and even misery. Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong, and this is all extremely contrary to how we must learn to recognize and interact with one another.)
There are relatively large populations of plant-eaters in the natural world, where diverse ecology still exists. But there are only small populations of animal-eaters. This difference reflects some fundamental truths about the universe.
Dave says that accounting for externalities would remedy the problem of food waste. Accounting for externalities would, in fact, cause the economy to function with respect to, rather than with lack of regard for, these underlying truths.
Accounting for externalities helps the economy embody principles of biology and the laws of thermodynamics.
If we want to reflect environmental impacts as part of the price structure (so that the economy becomes more intelligent by incorporating information about its environmental impacts into its structure and functioning, in an adaptive, responsive way) then the taxes or fees need to be applied to more than just energy-related externalities. We could easily decide that monoculture itself is an adverse impact on the environment (because it diminishes the extent of biodiversity across the landscape). We could impose a fee on all kinds of monoculture. We might impose a higher fee on monoculture of crops that most people feel are being planted to excess, to the detriment of the human community at large. Sugar cane, corn, opium, cocoa and cannabis may (or may not) be examples of such crops.
The balance or ratios of the different kinds of food produced by our agricultural system would come to reflect what most people believe is a good balance. (This is assuming fees are set at the amounts that will result in the limits that the largest number of people say are about the right limits. Random surveys are an obvious choice as an instrument to discern what those limits should be.)
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sun Mar 11 2012 18:25:21 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Taking a Bite Out Of Energy Consumption
I would echo what Chad said about raising animals with intent to kill and eat them. Feeding grain to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
(From a metaphysical standpoint (or is it an ethical standpoint?), we might consider that the frame of mind that says that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and all are commodities, that they are things for humans to use as means to our ends, is a fundamental, existential error. Exploitation of animals means denying freedom and imposing discomfort and even misery. Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong, and this is all extremely contrary to how we must learn to recognize and interact with one another.)
There are relatively large populations of plant-eaters in the natural world, where diverse ecology still exists. But there are only small populations of animal-eaters. This difference reflects some fundamental truths about the universe.
Dave says that accounting for externalities would remedy the problem of food waste. Accounting for externalities would, in fact, cause the economy to function with respect to, rather than with lack of regard for, these underlying truths.
Accounting for externalities helps the economy embody principles of biology and the laws of thermodynamics.
If we want to reflect environmental impacts as part of the price structure (so that the economy becomes more intelligent by incorporating information about its environmental impacts into its structure and functioning, in an adaptive, responsive way) then the taxes or fees need to be applied to more than just energy-related externalities. We could easily decide that monoculture itself is an adverse impact on the environment (because it diminishes the extent of biodiversity across the landscape). We could impose a fee on all kinds of monoculture. We might impose a higher fee on monoculture of crops that most people feel are being planted to excess, to the detriment of the human community at large. Sugar cane, corn, opium, cocoa and cannabis may (or may not) be examples of such crops.
The balance or ratios of the different kinds of food produced by our agricultural system would come to reflect what most people believe is a good balance. (This is assuming fees are set at the amounts that will result in the limits that the largest number of people say are about the right limits. Random surveys are an obvious choice as an instrument to discern what those limits should be.)
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sun Mar 11 2012 18:25:21 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Saturday, March 10, 2012
News reports missing questions about sustainability
Response to
Planet Money: Meet Claudia, The High-Tech Cow
The productivity increases are impressive, but if we look at them without any consideration of the fact that they are based on faster depletion of water, soil and petroleum, we will have a distorted view of the full implications of this technological change.
This is not a more sustainable method of food production. It is less sustainable. Which is to say, it is not sustainable.
Why not mention that these higher per cow rates of milk production are supported through the depletion of resources (soil and water) that future generations will need? I want to say, 'soil, water and petroleum' here. Human beings will have to learn to sustain a civilization without an extractive fossil fuel industry. But it may be that human beings are approaching depletion of petroleum faster than we are learning to adapt to its absence. In other words, for the sake of the stability of civilization, it may be preferable to slow the rates of extraction of resources, so that their eventual depletion can be put farther into the future, to allow more time for adaptation. The mechanism for slowing the taking of the resource (a fee for extraction) serves well as the financial incentive to industry to adapt to higher energy and materials efficiencies.
The 'learning to adapt' challenge is met most effectively through a fee mechanism.
Our current economic system functions with built-in systemic defects. Much of the water that supports the dairy industry is mined from the Ogalala Aquifer and other aquifers to grow the feed grains that are fed to the cows (and to wash the industrial dairy 'farms'). The side-effect of the industry, then, is the depletion of a limited resource (and water pollution). The defect in the system is that this pollution cost, this cost to society, is not reflected in prices. It is called an 'externality'. It is outside the cost-benefit analysis of industry.
Industries, corporations, do not pay attention to things outside the cost-benefit analysis.
Cultivating crops to feed to animals so that we can eat the animals or their products is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
'Inefficient' is a synonym for 'not productive'.
This fact is evident in the natural world: Populations of plant-eaters are always larger than populations of animal-eaters. We now have a large population of human beings, but we are trying to live as animal-eaters. This is not sustainable over the long term.
Free market forces would not drive industries toward unsustainable practices if all costs were included in the price structure. If players had to pay when they deplete water resources, petroleum and soil, then they would find ways to do business by producing less of these kinds of impacts on the Earth.
Labor productivity is not the only measure of productivity that we might be interested in. It may not be the most important, either.
When industries produce wealth, we should be able to assume that that wealth benefits humanity. That is what wealth is. It is a benefit or the ability to provide or enjoy benefits.
In the case of milk production, the product is not offering much benefit to humanity. Aside from the pleasure on our palate that we experience when we ea ice cream and cheese, and some would say when we drink milk, the benefit of the dairy industry to humanity is highly questionable.
Setting aside all those unaccounted environmental and resource depletion costs, the impact on our bodies from the excess protein and fat from milk is doing us no good at all.
We suffer higher rates of osteoporosis, obesity, breast cancer and other problems when we pretend that cow milk is food for human beings.
Fri Mar 09 2012 12:39:39 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Biodiversity as a public good
Planet Money: Meet Claudia, The High-Tech Cow
The productivity increases are impressive, but if we look at them without any consideration of the fact that they are based on faster depletion of water, soil and petroleum, we will have a distorted view of the full implications of this technological change.
This is not a more sustainable method of food production. It is less sustainable. Which is to say, it is not sustainable.
Why not mention that these higher per cow rates of milk production are supported through the depletion of resources (soil and water) that future generations will need? I want to say, 'soil, water and petroleum' here. Human beings will have to learn to sustain a civilization without an extractive fossil fuel industry. But it may be that human beings are approaching depletion of petroleum faster than we are learning to adapt to its absence. In other words, for the sake of the stability of civilization, it may be preferable to slow the rates of extraction of resources, so that their eventual depletion can be put farther into the future, to allow more time for adaptation. The mechanism for slowing the taking of the resource (a fee for extraction) serves well as the financial incentive to industry to adapt to higher energy and materials efficiencies.
The 'learning to adapt' challenge is met most effectively through a fee mechanism.
Our current economic system functions with built-in systemic defects. Much of the water that supports the dairy industry is mined from the Ogalala Aquifer and other aquifers to grow the feed grains that are fed to the cows (and to wash the industrial dairy 'farms'). The side-effect of the industry, then, is the depletion of a limited resource (and water pollution). The defect in the system is that this pollution cost, this cost to society, is not reflected in prices. It is called an 'externality'. It is outside the cost-benefit analysis of industry.
Industries, corporations, do not pay attention to things outside the cost-benefit analysis.
Cultivating crops to feed to animals so that we can eat the animals or their products is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
'Inefficient' is a synonym for 'not productive'.
This fact is evident in the natural world: Populations of plant-eaters are always larger than populations of animal-eaters. We now have a large population of human beings, but we are trying to live as animal-eaters. This is not sustainable over the long term.
Free market forces would not drive industries toward unsustainable practices if all costs were included in the price structure. If players had to pay when they deplete water resources, petroleum and soil, then they would find ways to do business by producing less of these kinds of impacts on the Earth.
Labor productivity is not the only measure of productivity that we might be interested in. It may not be the most important, either.
When industries produce wealth, we should be able to assume that that wealth benefits humanity. That is what wealth is. It is a benefit or the ability to provide or enjoy benefits.
In the case of milk production, the product is not offering much benefit to humanity. Aside from the pleasure on our palate that we experience when we ea ice cream and cheese, and some would say when we drink milk, the benefit of the dairy industry to humanity is highly questionable.
Setting aside all those unaccounted environmental and resource depletion costs, the impact on our bodies from the excess protein and fat from milk is doing us no good at all.
We suffer higher rates of osteoporosis, obesity, breast cancer and other problems when we pretend that cow milk is food for human beings.
Fri Mar 09 2012 12:39:39 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Biodiversity as a public good
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Discourtesy blocking natural emergence of sustainability and justice
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
I think it is a mistake to say (as professors K. Hickey and D. Kantarelis at Assumption College did) that this proposal ...
Maybe *I* am mistaken in thinking that this is a reasonable and practical proposal that describes real possibilities.
We could make a judgment about whether this proposal is contrary to human nature if Hickey and Kantarelis would be willing to say *what* changes in human nature would be required. How is our nature inconsistent with this proposal? What changes would be required?
Which aspect(s) of the proposal, exactly, is (are) being challenged?
After repeated requests, these professors have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to extend a professional courtesy to offer a sentence or paragraph of explanation or elaboration of their assertion.
I have just ended a three-day fast. I did the fast to protest DIS-courtesy.
This fast was not done merely to protest the discourtesy that might disrespect me or others personally. This was a protest of discourtesy that covers for or hides a serious neglect of what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal; one that might be part of a natural unfoldment of a sustainable and just human civilization on Earth.
Following this path *might* be part of a natural unfoldment of a new phenomenon in the universe (a sustainable and just global civilization), except that this natural development is forestalled by an UN-willingness to bring these ideas to a wider audience and make them part of the public discourse.
What change(s) in human nature would be required before we could create a policy of charging fees or selling permits to polluters? Or, what changes would be required in our nature before we could create a rule or law that says these fee proceeds will be shared among all people, to each an equal amount?
I'm still wondering.
(If the professors are unwilling to answer these questions, perhaps a reader here would like tto do so.)
How to make the biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a mistake to allow public discourse to be dominated by arguments about whether humans cause climate instability or about how much change can be attributed to human activities or about whether that change might be good or bad, on balance.
Public discourse ought to be focused on discovering efficient and fair ways to bring the reality about environmental impacts into line with what most people think those impacts should be.
We should be talking about what are the most effective, transparent and verifiable means for discerning the will of the people regarding the various kinds of human impacts on the environment.
We could use random surveys to learn what rates of emissions and what rates of taking of resources most people believe are acceptable. We would need to conduct many different surveys that inquire about the many different kinds of environmental impacts, but since polls of very large groups (in this case, the global population) can use relatively small sample sizes and still produce accurate results, we would likely be asked a question related to air pollution, for example, only about once or twice a year. (That's assuming 30,000 chemicals or classes of chemicals, and a sample size of 30,000.)
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
I think it is a mistake to say (as professors K. Hickey and D. Kantarelis at Assumption College did) that this proposal ...
Biological Model for Politics and Economics: Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html… would require changes in human nature.
Maybe *I* am mistaken in thinking that this is a reasonable and practical proposal that describes real possibilities.
We could make a judgment about whether this proposal is contrary to human nature if Hickey and Kantarelis would be willing to say *what* changes in human nature would be required. How is our nature inconsistent with this proposal? What changes would be required?
Which aspect(s) of the proposal, exactly, is (are) being challenged?
After repeated requests, these professors have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to extend a professional courtesy to offer a sentence or paragraph of explanation or elaboration of their assertion.
I have just ended a three-day fast. I did the fast to protest DIS-courtesy.
This fast was not done merely to protest the discourtesy that might disrespect me or others personally. This was a protest of discourtesy that covers for or hides a serious neglect of what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal; one that might be part of a natural unfoldment of a sustainable and just human civilization on Earth.
Following this path *might* be part of a natural unfoldment of a new phenomenon in the universe (a sustainable and just global civilization), except that this natural development is forestalled by an UN-willingness to bring these ideas to a wider audience and make them part of the public discourse.
What change(s) in human nature would be required before we could create a policy of charging fees or selling permits to polluters? Or, what changes would be required in our nature before we could create a rule or law that says these fee proceeds will be shared among all people, to each an equal amount?
I'm still wondering.
(If the professors are unwilling to answer these questions, perhaps a reader here would like tto do so.)
How to make the biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a mistake to allow public discourse to be dominated by arguments about whether humans cause climate instability or about how much change can be attributed to human activities or about whether that change might be good or bad, on balance.
Public discourse ought to be focused on discovering efficient and fair ways to bring the reality about environmental impacts into line with what most people think those impacts should be.
We should be talking about what are the most effective, transparent and verifiable means for discerning the will of the people regarding the various kinds of human impacts on the environment.
We could use random surveys to learn what rates of emissions and what rates of taking of resources most people believe are acceptable. We would need to conduct many different surveys that inquire about the many different kinds of environmental impacts, but since polls of very large groups (in this case, the global population) can use relatively small sample sizes and still produce accurate results, we would likely be asked a question related to air pollution, for example, only about once or twice a year. (That's assuming 30,000 chemicals or classes of chemicals, and a sample size of 30,000.)
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)