Category Archives: politics

>Edward Abbey on population growth

>

When reading Edward Abbey‘s most excellent Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness (1968), I found his thoughts about the condition of the Navajo Indians very much related to population growth, limited space, carrying capacity and what it will probably lead to. The beginning of the end, so to speak.

 The increase [of the population of the Navajo tribe] is the indirect result of the white man’s medical science introduced on the Navajo reservation, which greatly reduced the infant mortality rate… […] Are the Navajos grateful? They are not. To be poor is bad enough; to be poor and multiplying is worse.
In the case of the Navajo the effects of uncontrolled population growth are vividly apparent. The population, though ten times greater than a century ago, must still exist on a reservation no bigger now than it was then. In a pastoral economy based on sheep, goats and horses the inevitable result, as any child could have foreseen, was severe overgrazing and the transformation of the range – poor enough to start with – from a semiarid grassland to an eroded waste of blowsand and nettles. In other words the land available to the Navajos not only failed to expand in proportion to their growing numbers; it has actually diminished in productive capacity.

In order to survive, more and more of the Navajos, or The People as they used to call themselves, are forced off the reservation and into rural slums along the major highways and into the urban slums of the white man’s towns which surround the reservation. Here we find them today doing the best they can as laborers, gas station attendants, motel maids and dependents of the public welfare system. They are the Negroes of the Southwest – red black men. […] Unequipped to hold their own in the ferociously competitive world of White America, in which even the language is foreign to them, the Navajos sink ever deeper into the culture of poverty, exhibiting all of the usual and well-known symptoms: squalor, unemployment or irregular and ill-paid employment, broken families, disease, prostitution, crime, alcoholism, lack of education, too many children, apathy and demoralization, and various forms of mental illness, including evangelical Protestantism. Whether in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, the barrios of Caracas, the ghettos of Newark, the mining towns of West Virginia or the tarpaper villages of Gallup, Flagstaff and Shiprock, it’s the same the world over – one big wretched family sequestered in sullen desperation, pawed over by social workers, kicked around by the cops and prayed over by the missionaries.

As people suggest solutions to the miseries of mankind, Abbey speaks about the importance of not forgetting traditional values, simply put: We are all different, let’s learn from each other. The critique of mindless labour (”spending the best part of his life inside an air-conditioned office building with windows that cannot be opened”) versus life is also clearly present in this quote:

 …they fail to take into account what is unique and valuable in the Navajo’s traditional way of life and ignore altogether the possibility that the Navajo may have as much to teach the white man as the white man has to teach the Navajo.

Industrialization, for example. Even if the reservation could attract and sustain large-scale industry heavy or light, which it cannot, what have the Navajos to gain by becoming factory hands, lab technicians and office clerks? The Navajos are people, not personell; nothing in their nature or tradition has prepared them to adapt to the regimentation of application forms and time clocks. To force them into the machine would require a Procrustean mutilation of their basic humanity.
[…]
Coming from a tradition which honours sharing and mutual aid above private interest, the Navajo thinks it somehow immoral for one man to prosper while his neighbors go without.

One might say this is a primitive attitude.
I say it’s a civilized one.
Back to population growth:

 They [the politicians, businessmen, bankers, administrators, engineers – The Developers] cannot see that growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness, that Phoenix and Albuquerque will not be better cities to live in when their populations are doubled again and again. They would never understand that an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human.
So much by way of futile digression: the pattern is fixed and protest alone will not halt the iron glacier moving upon us.
No matter, it’s of slight importance. Time and the winds will sooner or later bury the Seven Cities of Cibola, Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, all of them, under dunes of glowing sand, over which blue-eyed Navajo bedouin will herd their sheep and horses, following the river in winter, the mountains in summer, and sometimes striking off across the desert toward the red canyons of Utah where great waterfalls plunge over silt-filled, ancient, mysterious dams.

Partner in thought-crime, Oskorei, has written many inspirational articles (in Swedish) about Edward Abbey. Click here for further reading.
Recommended soundtrack: OM – Pilgrimage.

>The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race

>

Dr. Albert A. Bartlett examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal.

The whole presentation is available on YouTube, divided into eight clips. This is the first one, and below is a summary and direct quotes of what he says.


The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. The exponential function is used to describe the size of anything that’s growing steadily, for example 5% per year.
[And then follows some easy mathematics that you’ll have to check for yourself in the beginning of the clip, I won’t bother typing that stuff…]

On July 7, 1986, the news reports indicated that the world population had reached five billion people, growing at a rate of 1.7 percent per year. Doubling time = 41 years. In 1999 we read that the world population had reached six billion people, growth 1.3 percent per year, doubling time 53 years.
In 1999 the world population was increasing by approx. 80 million people per year. If this modest 1.3% percent per year could continue, the world population would reach a density of one person per square meter on the dry-land surface of the earth in 780 years. Of course, this won’t ever happen, because in a rather short period of time – compared to those 780 years – zero population growth will become a fact: today’s high birth rates will drop and today’s low death rates will rise until they have exactly the same numerical value.

How to decrease population growth then? Certainly not by supporting immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation, peace, law and order, clean air, but rather by encouraging abortion, small families, war, famine, murder, violence, pollution, and by stopping immigration… Wow, that’s radical! But it’s the truth. Nature will have its way with us, no matter what we say. There’s one option, though, which is open to us. We need to find something on this list of horrible tragedy that we can go out and campaign for. Anyone  for promoting disease?

The human dilemma is that everything we consider as good makes the population problem worse. Everything bad will help us solve the problem, and nature is taking care of that problem right now. In Southern Africa, growth is slowing due to the high number of HIV-related deaths, just to pick an example out of many.

Now let’s examine the characteristics of steady growth in a finite environment (remember the discussion of finite funds in the second Overshoot post).
Imagine bacteria growing steadily in a bottle (the bottle being the finite environment). They double in number every minute. At 11:00 AM there is one bacteria in the bottle. One hour later the bottle is full.

Three questions:
1. At what time was the bottle half full?
Answer: At 11:59 AM.
2. If you were an average bacterium in the bottle, at what time would you first realize that you were running out of space?
Answer: Well, at 11:55 the bottle is only 3 percent full. 87 percent open space just yearning for development. How many of you would realize there was a problem?
3. Let’s say some intelligent bacteria realize there is a problem and get out of the bottle in search of new bottles. They find three new bottles. An amazing discovery! But how long can the growth continue?
Answer: At 11:59 Bottle 1 is half full. At 12:00 Bottle 1 is full. At 12:01 Bottles 1 & 2 are full. At 12:02 all four bottles are full – and that’s the end of the line.

You don’t need any more arithmetic than this to evaluate the absolutely contradictory statements made by experts who tell us we can go on increasing our rates of consumption of fossil fuels, and in the next breath they say ”Don’t worry, we’ll always be able to make the discoveries of new resources that we need to meet the requirements of that growth”…

In the year 1973, world oil production was 20 billion barrels.
The total production in all of history, 300 billion.
The remaining reserves, 1700 billion.
Back then, in 1973, the clock read two minutes to 12:00.
Today it’s 12:00 and we’re about to finish using up the oil reserves of the earth.

There will be discoveries of oil, but ask yourself: what do you think is the chance that oil discovered after the close of our meeting today will be in an amount equal to the total of all we’ve known about in all of history?

Dr Hubbert in 1974 predicted that the peak of world oil would occur around 1995, so lets see what’s happened. We have to go to the geology literature and ask the literature, “What do you think is the total amount of oil we will ever find on this earth?” The consensus figure in the literature is 2000 billion barrels. Now, that’s quite uncertain, plus or minus maybe 40 or 50%.
That would mean the peak is this year (2004). If I assume there is 50% more than the consensus figure, the peak moves back to 2019. If I assume there’s twice as much as the consensus figure, the peak moves back to 2030.
So no matter how you cut it, in your life expectancy, you are going to see the peak of world oil production. And you’ve got to ask yourself, what is life going to be like when we have a declining world production of petroleum, and we have a growing world population, and we have a growing world per capita demand for oil. Think about it.

Well, we do have to ask about new discoveries. Here is a discussion from about fifteen years ago about the largest discovery of oil in the Gulf of Mexico in the past twenty years, an estimated 700 million barrels of oil. That’s a lot of oil, but a lot compared to what? At that time, we were consuming 16.6 million barrels every day in the United States. Divide the 16.6 into 700 and you find that discovery would meet US needs for 42 days.

Bill Moyers interviewed Isaac Asimov. He asked Asimov, “What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues?” and Asimov says, “It’ll be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then they both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. And everyone believes in freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the constitution. But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, then no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there’s no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang on the door, ‘Aren’t you through yet?’ and so on.” And Asimov concluded with one of the most profound observations I’ve seen in years. He said, “In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation. Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one individual matters.”

Full transcript here:
http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645

Thanks to Eda for linking to this amazing lecture.

>Overshoot #2: Death control for the hunters and gatherers?

>

As for population growth, between 1650 and 1850 the world’s human population doubled. Industrialization was the key. Also, in 1865 the practice of antiseptic surgery began. Vaccination, antibiotics and hygienic practices etc., leading to death control.
The population doubled again by 1930, in only eight years. Since 1950, the world’s population has almost tripled. The city of Lagos had a population of 700,000 in 1960. That will rise to 16 million by 2025.

The displacing of species, as mentioned in the first Overshoot post, was not only directed towards plants and animals, of course. In the takeover process, humans not capable of such massive exploitation – the people less equipped – became victims. American Indians, Aborigines, Africans, Polynesians… That’s how life works. That’s what creatures do. We kill each other in search for space, in means of survival. To each his own.

However, industrialization did not take over a place that had previously supported other forms of life. Instead, it went underground in order to enlarge carrying capacity – from a finite fund! Modern industrial societies continue to behave as if we will constantly discover new funds of mineral materials and fossil fuels. The whole industrial process relies on this hunt for new funds, not realizing that there almost aren’t any left.
Since 8000 B.C. mankind has been taking over contemporary botanical processes that contains material with renewal times much shorter than a human lifespan. Now, we rely on material with renewal times that are millions of times longer than a human lifespan.

 After ten millenia of progress, Homo sapiens is ”back at square one”. Industrialization committed us to living again, massively, as hunters and gatherers of substances which only nature can provide, and which occur only in limited quantity.

For long, countries have been able to get away with exceeding the human carrying capacity of their own lands, but only by drawing on carrying capacity located elsewhere on the planet. William R. Catton, Jr., takes Great Britain and Japan as an example: ”If food could not be obtained from the sea (6.5%) or from other nations (48%), more than half of Britain would have faced starvation… […] …if Japan could not have drawn upon fisheries all around the globe and upon trade with other nations, two-thirds of her people would have been starving, or every Japanese city would have been two-thirds  undernourished (which presumably means that nearly all might have died).”
To be continued in Part #3.

My friend, Ola of Massgrav fame, works at Greenpeace, and they’ve made the finest posters.

Click to enlarge.

>Overshoot

>

 In a future that is as unavoidable as it will be unwelcome, survival and sanity may depend on our ability to cherish rather than to disparage the concept of human dignity.

Thanks to a partner in crime, Erik Sundin, I became aware of William R. Catton, Jr., and his book Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (1980). This book pretty much sums up everything I’ve been trying to say with the political and philosophical rants on this blog. It’s a realistic take on what will happen in a near future. Man will never learn, never change – and if he does, it will be too late. ”Eventually has already come yesterday”, as Catton puts it.
The book was written 30 years ago, but is more relevant than ever – and its relevance only continues to increase, because we’re living in that future right now.

In ecology, overshoot occurs ”when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment”. Note that Catton makes a distinction between population numbers and population pressure. Overshoot deals mainly with population pressure.
The main point is that we’ve exaggerated the contributions of technical genius and underestimated the contributions of natural resources. If we had written history with ecology in mind (instead of war, money and brutal human dominance), things would have looked brighter today.
After World War II we believed that science and technology could fix just about anything. In July 1969, when we had people walking on the moon, President Nixon claimed it was ”the greatest week since the creation of the Earth”. However, the 70’s and all of its setbacks showed that wasn’t the case; superior weapon technology did not win the war in Vietnam, great famines in Africa and Asia was a hard nut to crack for the scientists, and so on… Again, ”survival and sanity may depend on our ability to cherish rather than disparage the concept of human dignity”. Also, ”the alternative to chaos is to abandon the illusion that all things are possible”.

During the course of history, mankind has been forced to enlarge this planet’s human carrying capacity.This is absolutely necessary, since populations continue to grow in a very rapid pace. It was done by displacing other species, meaning taking over various spots in the biosphere – simply killing off what was there before. Plants and animal types were the first in line to become extinct due to mankinds’ continued search for space. But this displacing of species could not go on forever. Eventually we ran out of displaceable competitors.
When people sought the good life they were told to ”go west”, i.e. go where there is new land to take over. Now, to access the good life we’re told to speed up the economy, i.e. ”try to draw down the finite reservoir of exhaustible resources a bit faster”. Today’s complex societies are dependent on rapid use of exhaustible resources, but there are insanely more human beings alive than those resources can support.

So, before we start killing each other off for real, here is our desperate solution: With technology we’ll make use of geological reservoirs, simply slowing down the process of ending these resources. It will work for a while. The most ”developed” societies will temporarily be able to feed off this exploitation – until they run out. Because the thing is, these kind of reservoirs of materials are not limitless, and they cannot be renewed within any human time frame. Hence, we are forced to steal from – and thus destroy – the future. To be able to feel good today, we are forced to make it worse for future generations, for the children of today, the children of the grave.
Not too long ago, people were convinced that the future would be better than the past…

 All of the familiar aspects of human societal life are under compelling pressure to change in this new era when the load increasingly exceeds the carrying capacities of many local regions—and of a finite planet. Social disorganization, friction, demoralization, and conflict will escalate.

Catton puts it like this:

carrying capacity:           maximum permanently supported load.

cornucopian myth:         euphoric belief in limitless resources.

drawdown:                    stealing resources from the future.

cargoism:                      delusion that technology will always save us from

overshoot:                     growth beyond an area’s carrying capacity, leading to

crash:                           die-off.

Technological (and other) ”successes” in the history of mankind, which solved problems only in a short-term perspective, are now escalating the end of humanity. All the harmful substances created by technology accumulate too fast for the ecosystem to reprocess them. We’ve used the atmosphere as a garbage dump for far too long and are now beginning to see the results of that, in terms of global warming, measurable rise of sea levels, change of the seasons, movement of communities to higher latitudes, and disruption of many aspects of human life that we didn’t see coming.
Catton means that we need to become aware of the ecological facts of life, and that they affect our lives far more importantly and permanently ”than the events that make headlines”.

This is old news, but we still don’t get it.
I say yes to Bolt Thrower’s question: ”When we understand, will it be too late?”



Nightmare world
Reflected as a dream
Vision blurred
This surely can not be
Twisted now
Far from reality
Delving into depths
Mankinds depravity

Violated planet – world bureaucracy
Graved with resentment – global lunacy

Stricken thoughts
Terror overrides
Pierce the fragments
Of the mind
Deep regret now
Engraved upon the soul
Mortality now echoes
Throughout this world

Avarice – leads to compulsion
Ruined world – beyond recognition

When we understand
Will it be too late?
To future generations
A legacy of hate
A legacy of hate

RELATED POSTS
Living with the dying
Oswald Spengler – The Decline of Cultures
Här finns inget varaktigt och allmängiltigt (about Spengler in Swedish)
Great movies of the 80’s: Threads
Society’s sickness
Situationism – Part 1
Situationism – Part 2
Situationism – Part 3
Planet Earth and misanthropy
The art of psychogeography
Spengler: The morale of dawning “civilization”
Manufactured landscapes
The Earth shall inherit the meek
Into The Wild and the ego
Theodore Kaczynski

>The Israel Lobby 2009 – Part Two

>

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The Zionist cause becomes quite obvious when looking at this map. As I’ve stated here, the essence of Zionism is Jewish ethnic domination over Palestine, and by looking at this map you’ll see that the future of a two-state solution is virtually non-existent. Israel keeps expanding its settlements, no matter what the rest of the world thinks about such criminal behaviour.
As a reminder of the ugliness and stupidity of religion (read more about that herehere, here and here), the Christian Zionists, who are a significant political force in America, oppose the two-state solution, because they believe total Israeli control over Palestine will make it easier for Christ’s “Second Coming”… Holy fuck!

In short, there are three alternatives to a two-state solution. Each will be disastrous – for Israel, that is.

One: Abandon the Zionist vision of a Jewish state and let Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. This will never happen. There is no way that the Jewish people will agree to live as a minority in a state dominated by an Arab majority. Israel’s supporters in America will have no interest in this outcome.

Two: Israel expels all Palestinians in an act of ethnic cleansing, pretty much like what they did in 1948. This might actually happen, considering the recent Gaza massacre. They are so concerned about the survival of this Jewish state they’re capable of doing just such a sickening thing. However, the Palestinians will put up brutal resistance. There will be lots of blood. Will the West sit back once again? Probably so. This will be the absolute beginning of the end.

Three: Apartheid. This is the most likely outcome. The Arabs will be forced to live in small enclaves with limited autonomy, economically crippled and with no part in the political process. This is pretty much how things are right now.

Democracy in Israel won’t be tolerated, since the Arabs, who are the majority, would dominate its politics.

John Mearsheimer:
Imagine if the roles were reversed and a powerful Palestinian state was taking land away from Jewish inhabitants and brutalizing them in the process. There would rightfully be a storm of protest in the US and across Europe and tremendous pressure would be brought to bear on that Palestinian state to immediately cease exploiting the Jews and permit them to have a state of their own. But when Israelis colonize the West Bank and effectively turn Gaza into a giant prison for the Palestinians who live there, the US government not only does not protest, it backs Israel to the hilt. And that includes Barack Obama.

This article is based on John Mearsheimer‘s talk in Oslo, October 5th 2009. The personal rants are all mine, though. John doesn’t seem to be a man of swear words…
Huge thanks to John for sending me the speech, both in English and in Norwegian.

Yesterday, Antiwar.com published the article The Israel Lobby, the Neocons, and the Iranian-American Community. It’s well worth reading.

>The Israel Lobby 2009

>

This article is based on John Mearsheimer‘s talk in Oslo, October 5th 2009. The personal rants are all mine, though. John doesn’t seem to be a man of swear words…
Huge thanks to John for sending me the speech, both in English and in Norwegian.

President Obama is a man of words, but is he a man of action? During his presidential campaign 2008 and since taking office, he made – and still makes – a lot of promises. Regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East he made it very clear that he was committed to settling the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. To do this he would get Israel to stop expanding its settlements in the occupied territories and – in the future – allow the Palestinians to have their own state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Also, he said that he – as opposed to George W. Bush – believed in diplomatic, serious negotiations with Iran, instead of military attacks and threats of economic sanctions.

However, this will probably never happen, since the Israel Lobby simply won’t allow such humane behaviour.

The Netanyahu government in Israel is opposed to giving the Palestinians their own state, and it is also deeply committed to expanding the settlements. No president will be allowed to play the hardball game with Israel, because the goal is to control the whole West Bank and the Gaza Strip, leaving the Arabs with small enclaves inside Israel – pretty much like a white-ruled South Africa. Read more about zionism here.

As for Iran, it is looked upon as an existential threat to the Jewish state, and the Israel Lobby and its supporters have no interest in talking to a regime who, they believe, wants to ”wipe Israel off the map” (fact is, Ahmadinejad never said that, read more about that in the Propaganda for war article).
Note that Israel is the only country in the world advocating war against Iran. Inside the U.S., there are only pro-Israel individuals and dito organizations who support using force in this case. In fact, there would be little talk about attacking Iran if Israel and the Lobby were not bitching about war all the time. And again: who are the ones in possession of nuclear weapons? Also read this article in The Economist.

Even though Israel constantly do things that the U.S. opposes, they still get more foreign aid – billions of dollars each year – than any other country. Every goddamn American president since 1967 has – in theory, in meek words – opposed settlement-building in the occupied territories, still Israel continues to break the rules. And they’re not being punished – they’re constantly being rewarded. Why is that? The answer: the enormous power of the Israel Lobby. America is completely impotent when it comes to dealing with Israel. Serious criticism of Israel is never heard of from American officials. It’s a joke, really.
Ok, Obama made it very clear that he would like to see a stop of any settlement activity, and that he’d like a Palestinian state. However, Netanyahu also made it very clear that he would not stop, and that he didn’t like the idea of a two-state solution. Who won? Israel, of course. This tiny country in a distant region continue to rule the giant U.S. colossus. Isn’t that strange?

John Mearsheimer:
Netanyahu not only refused to stop building 2500 housing units in the West Bank, but just to make it clear to Obama who was boss, in late June, he authorized the building of 300 new homes in the West Bank. Netanyahu refused to even countenance any limits on settlement building in East Jerusalem, which is supposed to be the capitol of a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel went ahead, despite American protests, and converted an old Arab hotel in East Jerusalem into a Jewish apartment building. The Israelis also expelled two Arab families from their homes that they had lived in for 50 years and issued tenders for 468 new apartments in East Jerusalem.

Obama meekly asked Israel to please ”restrain” itself while it continued colonizing the West Bank.

Talk is cheap.
Change?
Hope?
Yes we can?
No, you can’t. Not when it comes to Israel and the lobby.

The Israel Lobby’s influence is at its peak during the presidential campaigns. You won’t ever witness such a campaign without the mentioning if this tiny but powerful country. 
After Obama had won the election he remained perfectly silent during the recent Gaza massacre. The whole world stood up and criticized Israel for its brutal assault, but Obama kept quiet. A few months later he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize…
I still wonder about all you naïve Obama worshippers who cried during his inaugural speech: when are you going to wake the fuck up?

When reading this, and since it’s such a sensitive subject just mentioning Jews, I think it’s of great importance that you recognize this: the Lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by ethnicity or religion. The Israel Lobby is not necessarily synonymous with Jewish-Americans. The Christian Zionists, for example, that work on Israel’s behalf, are not Jewish.
In other words: your shallow hate mongering about anti-Semitism does not compute.

To be continued…

EDIT:
Monday, 16 november 2009, The Independent publishes an interesting article entitled “Palestinian push for an independent state causes Israeli alarm“. Pretty much says it all…

>Why we fight

>Why do people think that just because you give voice to one opinion of one political party, you’re down 100% with that specific party? Just a disclaimer, because I’m not down with any party. So therefore, here’s some old school communism for ya, the way I like it: classy! Because if there’s gonna be a class war, I’d like it classy…

Johannes Jäger made me aware of this one. Check his blogg (in Swedish) here.