🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Carr <jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:

Oh boy,  inflammatory political issues on sci.physics!  My absolute
_fave_ (wink at Keith Ramsay here).  I mean,  I never develop any
emotional energy over physics (wink at myself here).

Just remember,  I didn't start this one...

>Kirby Urner wrote:
>}
>} I think it also begins with a scientific position: the we have the
>} means to accomplish this result, have for some time.  That makes
>} the current agony neither an 'act of nature' nor an 'act of God
>} or gods', meaning willful inaction is starting to supply historians
>} with new ways of looking back on our time ... 
>
> One trusts that historians will look at the data. 
>
>J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz writes:
>>
>>Starvation on this planet is an act of man. As Kirby says we have the
>>means to solve the problem. 
>
> That is correct.  We have the food and the distribution system, up 
> to a point.  There are cases where the distribution system has put 
> the food in the country where people are starving, for example. 

I agree much economic non-optimality is an act of man as opposed to
what they used to call an act of God;  the Great Depression is a prime
example:  What war,  famine,  plague,  sudden exhaustion of natural
resources,  etc,  etc,  plunged the United States (and I apologize to
the rest of the world,  I know even less about the world history of
that period than US history,  which ain't much...) into semi-economic
ruin in in 1929?  Answer:  Absolutely nothing external.  People,
resources,  skills,  all there.  Production,  employment;  not there.
Why?  Systemic failure.

This suggests a third category is need beyond 'Act of God' and 'Act of
Man'.  There may be villains for the Great Depression,  and some people
are always eager to find them,  but the process was hardly the result
of the diabolical machinations of SMIRSH.  It was more biological;  an
unplanned derangement of the system.  In psychology we used to call
minor examples of this 'neuroses'.  Stalin's purges were an act of
Man,  but the Great Depression was an act of Men (well,  I'm trying...
_you_ think of a catchier phrase if you don't like it).   I think
Starvation falls much closer to the unplanned act of men category,
then to the villainous act of man.

And yes,  I'm sure we can identify individual villains;  social
situations are seldom all or nothing.  But let's not be blind to the
systemic elements in the search for moral theater.

>>It is politics, politicians, political
>>philosophy that gets in the way ... 
>
> At which point one should identify the politicians and philosophies 
> responsible for halting the distribution of that food. 

Nor should one forget Malthus.  

>>However, if we really want to do something about starvation, after the
>>feeling comes a willingness to sacrifice. Then the real issue becomes,
>>are we fat cat westerners prepared to take a cut in our standard of
>>living so that the starving get fed. 
>
> The answer is, "yes".  There is a 50-year history of this. 

I have mixed feeling about this.

Suppose tribe A controls 50% of the forest resources,  and tribe B the
other 50% (non-thinking stereotyped liberal warning -- I am about to
increase your blood pressure by taboo applications of logic,  proceed
at your own risk).  Tribe A for whatever reason (no,  Virginia,  I
didn't say 'moral good') does not increase in population.  Birth's
equal deaths,  pretty much (and did I say these were renewable
resources?),  and a good standard of living can be maintained.  Tribe
B breeds like paramecia.

Well,  you _know_ what is going to happen:  Tribe B is soon straining
at the borders of its half of the forest,  looking hungrily at Tribe
A's relatively unpopulated paradise,  and _demand their share_.

And they are right to do so.  No individual child born to his intimate
family of twenty sibling in the teaming squalid megalopolis of B
incurred this fate through original sin;  no child in A incurred his
privileged status through original virtue.

And you know what the A-meisters say:  Hang on,  we started out with
the same cards,  we just played ours with a little more foresight.
You are telling us that we _cannot_ exercise foresight,  because no
matter what we do,  you will simply outbreed us,  and our share will
be no bigger than yours,  as individuals.

It seems to me they have a pretty solid stance also.

I'm not an ethicist,  but it seems to me at some point into the
passage from child to adult the B-people may begin to acquire some
personal responsibility for the results.  They did not ask to be born,
but when they bring another generation of miserable starving children
into the world in the same environment there actions,  while
understandable,  are hardly full of saintly altruism;  it is
self-interest,  the same as yours or mine.  They made a choice.

Stereotypical liberals go into a frenzy at this point.  Look,  buds,
I am _not_ a stereotypical conservative.  I'd like to see a 100%
inheritance tax,  and publicly funded abortion -- so there!  I've
got something for everybody.

But it seems to me plausible that while we are asking the bad old
first world to give up some prosperity to help the less fortunate,
they may with equal justice demand an immediate reduction in birth
rate -- no if's,  and's or but's,  and no damn excuses.  There earth is
probably _already_ grossly overpopulated.  Why 6 billion?  Who decided
on this figure?  Nobody,  of course;  it is an act of men.  But I
reject any morality that requires the more fortunate to temporarily
alleviate suffering,  at the same time accelerating the slide toward
the inevitable mass poverty.  

I doubt that even with 100 years of new technology the planet could
support 6 billion  people in a way we would consider a decent Western
middle class standard today -- though just possibly if we eliminated
that great anti-social mass polluter and mobile phalus,  the
automobile.  But that's another rant.

>>It's not just a matter of handing
>>out food - long term it must be about allowing free trade on the planet
>>so people can feed themselves by being able to sell what they've got,
>>even if it is only their sweat and toil. And us allowing them to compete
>>in our markets - even if it costs us some jobs locally. 
>
> It is sometimes difficult to have free trade with people who are 
> not free, since the results of trade may not reach those who did 
> the work.  And, apart from such important details as progress on 
> GATT regarding absurd tariffs in some countries (or cases like 
> ones where their own goods cost more than when export to the US), 
> a key problem is that the leaders of some countries have moved 
> away from self-sufficiency in food to push 'cash crops'.  This 
> is the opposite of the pattern one might deduce from the history 
> of the US and its agricultural policies. 
>
>>But while we scramble for more, while we aspire to be the richest man in
>>the cemetery, we don't even see whose back we are trampling over and nor
>>do we care.
>
> I do not buy products from certain companies for that reason.  That 
> means less income for those people in the third world who work for 
> that company, but perhaps another company will do what Ford did 
> at one time in the not-so-distant past. 

I am incapable of such measure in the face of such sentiments; though
maybe you even say they are partially justified.  Well... sure.  But I
can't stomach the 'blame America first' hypocrisy.  It's childish.  At
least we _try_ to stabilize our corner of the planet.  Isn't that a
start?  Should we do something different?  These horrible exploitation
issues are for consumer garage we would be better off without --
sneakers and jeans.  What about the massive pollution and
over-population in the developing world?  _That's_ what is going to
destroy the quality of future civilization.  Let's keep a sense of
perspective:  Sneakers and jeans are peanuts.  I'm not ever sure the
children making these things are worse off than they would have been
without the US manufacturer -- yes,  they work under conditions we
would not tolerate for in this country -- no,  I'm not advocating a
double standard or saying they are less than human -- but we can't
create heaven by waving a wand or a law.  If the manufacturers pull
out will the children be _better_ off?

Personally,  I'm going to hold on to my tiny little scrap of economic
advantage until you pry it from my cold dead fingers _until and
unless_ I seem to be giving up something towards a solution,  and not
so that some poor schmoe on the other side of the planet can have a
micron's worth more until over-breeding again reduces the excess to
zero,  and we all starve together.

>>I'll bet more money is spent on the issue of obesity in the US (and it's
>>related problems) than is spent on aid to the starving - isn't that
>>insane????
>
> Not as insane as people starving despite food being available 
> for them from the US, but not allowed to go to them by their 
> own government. 

Remember bad old Roman Imperial Hegemony?   Do you think sometimes
that armed overthrow of dictatorial governments my be morally
justified,   even a moral imperative?   Self determination?  Bah.
Hypocrisy.  Bosnia.  That is self determination.  It is hypocritical
to stand back and allow people their 'self-determined' right to be
victims of local strong men.  Just admit you are not about to put
your cojones on the line to help them;  let's not have any
'self-determination' hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy and stupidity right up and
down the line.

Don't worry... be happy.  And pass me the Bud Malt Liquor (new!
freshness dated!  product attribute!)   I'm evil... right?  No... just
disgusted.

Right now I'm more disgusted with stereotypical liberals than
stereotypical conservatives;  but that's probably just because they
are the dominant species here in NYC.