The Snails of Kew Gardens

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that the world should slow down sometimes. Somethings are progressing faster than we can really understand them. And then others seem like they have been stalling for far too long without much benefit from that "stability". In the broadest sense, the way we see the word politically is experiencing such a lag.

Ever since the concept of a government having control over land emerged, there have been an increasing amount of actions that undermine that dynamic. The U.N. being the most significant since it creates a kind of world forum, a place where consensus, rather than conflict, can take place. In anarchy's stead, it strives for peace. One does not simply go to war with another for no legitimate reason (to employ a popular meme). That is, in theory.

In the last decade, this has accelerated intensely because of globalization. NAFTA, the Eurozone as well as hundreds of other, smaller agreements were formed mostly for economic reasons (often pressured into existence by the WTO). Kant, who once espoused trade as the only way to achieve world peace, is grinning from beyond the grave. So it seems like this whole notion of a country's sovereignty being of utmost importance can take a bit of a backseat when trade comes into play. This is a general tendency in politics as of late to become more detached from ideology and closer to economics. Many governments have shifted their focus to the economy. Whether it's only because of the recent financial crisis remains to be seen.

Surely all this peace and trade isn't something I'm going to criticize? Well, it's a bit of a silly question for those who read this: of course I'm going to be critical of it. But what is so wrong about peace and trade? Well, peace is hard to argue with. But it is a bought peace. The trade agreements a lot of countries find themselves in allow large, foreign companies to effectively control a large resource in a country and exploit it cheaply. This does create jobs and wealth. However, the jobs often pay little, involve health hazards since their standards may not be high and contribute more to polluting the environment because of weak regulation. This is all very good for business, but not so good for people in the long run. And what country wants to turn itself into a polluted nation of wage-slaves with diminishing resources sold for pocket change? Just about everyone with primary resources it seems. Often, countries will agree to such conditions to get loans from the World Bank or the IMF to pay off their debt...oh and that has interest on it, which is often the only thing that ends up being paid. This is in large part why the nations that are doing well now are doing well, and nations that are not are stuck.

For more info on these topics, I'd look up terms like realpolitik and neoliberalism.

There are of course other trends running counter to the anarchist view of the world, promoting a different ideal than the one currently coming into existence with the help of the World Bank, the IMF and others. Those can offer some eye-opening points of view on a variety of issues and are sure to (if they haven't already) make an appearance under some form in these posts.

Protesting: Deontology or Hedonism?

There are many people today who are actively protesting in the name of various causes: more regulation, less regulation, a clean environment, responsible government, more jobs for average people and other things of varying relative importance. But why? Are all these people homeless? Are all these people choking on toxic fumes or being flooded by glacier water? Usually not, or not all. Many will claim it is their duty as citizens to express their opinion. And, in the current political system, protest is simply an extension of this expression. This would be related to the ideas of duty and deontology. But is it possible that people have a hidden yet stronger motivation to protest?

Pleasure is an excellent motivator. People can become addicted to the pleasure they get from all kinds of things: cigarettes, television, being hungry, eating...protesting? One of the arguments against the Occupy movement was that many people were protesting for the sake of protesting. The motivation for protesting was for the pleasure it procured the person, not because the causes(s) held any particular importance.

The problem with accusing someone of being hedonistic is that you can counter by putting into question the existence of deontology, in a way. It could be said that respecting ethics/morals, especially in such a public way, makes one feel good about oneself. This pleasure would then be the cause of the value attributed to the idea being followed. This cynical viewpoint could be applied even in the case of a martyr. It brings up a lot of questions (e.g.is it due to a psychological disorder in such a case? ) and could be considered a smokescreen for a concrete issue.

But is the existing paradigm completely free of distortions of logic? After the beginning of the Occupy movement, new expressions started being used to defend what was already in place: "job creators" "class warfare" (in its new form, see past entry) and "socialists". These have been used ubiquitously in so many contexts that it is astounding to me that the inconsistencies have not been pointed out more.

But why am I getting into what the media or the job creators have said in reaction? Well, it is a form of protest: they are using established channels to publicly advocate an idea.

One could also argue both sides are rationally interested because they could each stand to profit materially.

I hope this short, somewhat chaotic post helped get the brain juices moving a bit.

Why the U.S. elections concern more than just the U.S.

I don't think I need to tell you that the foreign policy of most of the candidates involves more "securing the Middle East", more intervention and more (or stable) defense spending. Then there's Mr. Paul, who would want less/none of all those.

Incumbent president Obama's foreign policy isn't that different from the neo-conservative Republicans, except perhaps for a decreasing open interest in the Middle East and spending.

Now that all the positions are generally defined, apart from Ron Paul, one does have reason to concern oneself with the results. Why? Remember Afghanistan? How all those countries went along with going to war? Well, the same thing could happen with the new punching bag of foreign policy: Iran. In a previous post I have likened terrorism and communism, Iran to the Soviet Union. That comparison still applies here. Everyone but Ron Paul wants to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Of course, because of the IAEA, we'd know if Iran was close to having one, but it's good to have a bogeyman. Nothing brings people together like a common enemy, even if the enemy is somewhat construed. But stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon in their language does not mean contacting the IAEA, it means going to the U.N. for a resolution and bombing the out of the country either way.

What that means for U.S. allies is a possible call to go to war. And with a lot of conservative governments around, it is likely to happen. There shouldn't be a conscription unless China and others get in on Iran's side. However a shift in spending towards defense for U.S. allies would be inevitable if a war were started.

And that's how and why, unfortunately, the decision of one part of the population of one country could mean a war for dozens of nations.

Pessimism and predictions

I want to elaborate a bit on why optimism isn't so popular and things I'm predicting for 2012 (just for fun, much like all of what I've written).

I ended the last post with a mention of two different worldviews: glass half-empty, glass half-full. So first, why is optimism not the clearly dominant way of seeing things? It has to do with a change in Western culture (arguably, all the world) in the 20th century. A movement known as modernism. Basically, it was born from the despair of the world wars, the end of religion as a pillar of society (and along with it a perceived degradation of morals). So no wonder people weren't jumping up and down about society in the future. We had also finally acquired the capacity to wipe just about everything from the face of the earth. This after a stint of totalitarianism (which is based on the idea that people are not to be trusted and are dangerous/useless unless they are part of a rigid and all-encompassing, somewhat arbitrary whole).

If that wasn't scary enough, the two countries with the largest capacities for destruction didn't like each other much. If you don't know what I'm talking about here, please read a history book. Or watch Rocky&Bullwinkle like I did.

So that explains where it started, but why's it going on now? Modernism died and become post-modernism/contemporary (which was like the "B&T:Bogus Journey" to Modernism's "Excellent Journey" in that it was even crazier and a bit funny but still bizarre) which also died.

So where are we now? Well, we're still living mostly on the legacy of modernism. Pessimism can be associated with feelings of victimization (things are shit now, so why expect things to get better?) And now, more than ever, people feel like victims of a system that just doesn't care. A possibly nasty side effect of government wasting time, money and resources at the expense of their people. And because a lot of things today don't feel "human" enough as they are based on making a fixed profit or based on quotas (which can give the impression that some/most people are better and are included in more things). The feeling that encompasses all of this is that our lives are still petty, despite the promises our parents had that they would be living a dream life of endless prosperity and world peace.*

*I'd recommend watching the part of "V for Vendetta" where Evey is talking about the significance of him blowing up a building and most of what Tyler Durden has to say in "Fight Club" for some well-phrased, complementary discussion on the topic of the reasons for our pessimism. I could also recommend a lot of modernist literature/art like Yeats' "The Second Coming",Camus and simply looking at Guernica (with the present in mind) but movies are easier to understand for today's increasingly visual media appetites.

Cultural indications are that a new surge of optimism and break from what may be causing pessimism is here or coming. Maybe we should pull a George Lucas and call it pre-modernism.

ON TO THE PREDICTIONS.

One: Perhaps President Obama's inaction is a political strategy. Something like Pragmatic procrastination. It got the Republicans to get even more fervent (but also created a divide). It created a mood of lost hope, which could be easily assuaged by implementing popular policies late into the term. I'm predicting he will get re-elected if only because of a failure from Republicans to come up with a suitable candidate, but Obama can help himself by putting his Consumer protection agency into action (not just sitting around) and by allowing for more transparency from public company donations to campaigns (which he currently has a giant opportunity for).

Two: Marriage equality in the United States will continue to expand.

Three and four applies to the next few years: If current trends continue, the protests will get bigger.

Four: A "Robin Hood" style tax will be implemented.

Five: Either famines and food prices will increase or the food system will be changed by land reforms and policies allowing people to grow food in the Global South.

Six: Once the U.N. changes leadership (or perhaps even before) it will become even more critical of world affairs and criticize policies that prevent real development.

Seven: The next election in Quebec(Canada) will be very important and will probably mirror the results of the federal election (more % of votes to the right and left with a possible unstable majority).

Lastly, this is more of a warning than a prediction. But Canadians, and in fact, inhabitants of any U.S. ally, should be watching the U.S. election with great anticipation and a certain degree of worry. Because only one of the Republican candidates has sworn off going to war with Iran without being provoked. And one of them, who wants a "Strong" country, wants to go back into Iraq. Oh and who do you think will follow the U.S. into Iran? Yeah. And then Peter MacKay will be able to reprise his role as the star of the hit Soap opera called "Canadian politics"

HUGE PARANTHESIS (because his new wife is Iranian and does not support foreign intervention in the country, because she would rather the country change from the inside. She is an activist working to stop the regime executing minors. It sounds like such a good cause it's hard to find a better one. She's a pageant winner, so she's often played off as a Pamela Anderson type, but don't let that speak for her: even if she's probably half Bill O'Reilly's age, she provided infinitely more reasonable and intelligent commentary than I have ever seen from him. Just goes to show experience does not necessarily come with age. END OF HUGE PARANTHESIS AND END OF POST

Iranism and an afterword cell phones

This part of the post is dedicated to a single rhetorical tactic: the scare tactic. Every politician in contemporary history has used it. A lot of us use it. How many children would stay up late if their parents didn't tell them the story of the swamp monster that eats children who are awake past their bedtime? But back to those politicians. The easiest example of scaring people into supporting someone is probably Communism during the Cold War. The rhetoric went: This candidate is "weak on Communism", so vote for me because I'll make sure to give them a (nuclear) whallop if they so much as look at us wrong.

But that's all in the past right? Well, ok there was that terrorism thing in the 2000s. Oh that's still kind of going on?

The new tool of U.S. politicians' desire to gain support (by playing on people's fears) is Iran (and China...and basically anyone they don't really like). Ron Paul's stance of non-intervention (a split from the more neo-conservative line) as often drawn this kind of "soft on X" criticism. John Huntsman was also the target of criticism in the form of a controversial attack ad depicting him as chummy with China. I guess that "fear Communism" stuff isn't quite dead yet then. Older voters being a probable target audience of the ad since it harkens back to the days when China wasn't the bustling capitalist-socialist hybrid it is now.

Am I saying that Iran isn't a dangerous place to be? That the regime doesn't follow an oppressive doctrine that restricts freedoms and goes against many principles we as humans have been trying to cultivate? No, I'm not saying that. But I don't trust any other state to intervene and promote an image of themselves as some kind of Prometheus of all things democratic and good. I've said it before, but it deserves repeating: Look at Iraq. Between freeing the people and making billions of off rebuilding what they destroyed (rather than build better infrastructures at home) and extracting resources at whim. With a little help from their new, very, very friendly administration.

Such is the way of empires since industrialization (British, American, Japanese). What is profitable and allows the maintenance of empire is the way that must be followed. I'm not anti-American, I simply don't think that imperialism (whatever form it takes) is sustainable or in the interests of most human beings. I think we should prioritize well-being over the material. I'm sure virtually everyone would, if they saw it in front of them. If you buy a new cell phone (get a Blackberry, with RIM tanking it should be a steal), then I ask you to give me the cell phone, knowing that giving up the new cell phone (presuming your old one was still functional or easily repairable) would save someone's life, would you do it?

Most people would answer yes. If not...you might want to get that checked.

But what a silly example, I mean, it's not like people are killed over cell phones. In that you are right. They are killed over something much much smaller inside the cell phone. Parts made from coltan. A mineral found in immense quantities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. You know, that super poor country that consistently ranks at the bottom of every list on the standard of living, peace and anything desirable in general. Which is very, very unfortunate and partially due to its history. But again, empire comes into play. Multinational companies from Western countries are very keen to extract coltan, and are even happier to buy it cheap which saves them the effort and danger from conflict. There's a whole backstory to how they got there and how they're buying coltan from warring factions inside the country that helps perpetuate a vicious ethnic and resource war in the East (which can be seen also as a result of imperialism in the 19th century). But I'll leave that for one to investigate on one's own.

And I'm not insane. Well, if I am, I'm not the only one. The UN published a report in 2001 saying exactly what I've said about this cycle of conflict minerals maintaining many bad things in the DRC.

There was also a video made, based on a victim of the war, to raise awareness about this issue. But the title perfectly describes the content. It is Unwatchable. Shocking in the superlative and a sure way to induce horror and indignation. It epitomizes the ruthlessness of a theocratic regime, the unethical profit that corporations can make and the violence (physical and metaphysical) that ties it all together.

This all sounds quite grim, but I remain optimistic because, overall, things are changing for the better. Is it too late? Perhaps, but what are we going to do, give up? That's hardly a plan worthy of the millions of years of progress life has made.


And that is why I

Clean up on rock 3?

I don't think this topic needs an introduction because it is by now one of the most discussed and important issues (even if you don't believe in it, debunking it is an issue). However, this post concerns itself with the "what are we supposed to do about it", so it assumes global warming exists (whether it is caused by man or not, it is still a problem if we get flooded).

I call as my aides in this problem...who else, the sociologists! Now while it can easily be argued that these terms and ideas can coincide with other disciplines, sociology has the largest scope. Now that that's justified, on to the future!

By that I mean, the multiple possibilities of the future. The sociologists have identified the five most likely outcomes to issues as large as these.
1) Status quo: things go on as they have, trends are maintained ad infinitum with little change (think conservatism)
2) Authoritarian Control: Mankind decides it can't act on this unless the effort is completely controlled and coordinated(usually by government), basically we don't trust ourselves, so we give up freedom to potentially save our lives...much like the Bush Administration did...
3)Disaster: In short, think "2012" or "The day after tomorrow"...Disaster strikes and we can do little or nothing to stop it. We might survive, but will be forever affected and have to live through the aftermath.
4)Hyper-expansionist: Technology becomes our savior, our panacea. Earth goes on fire? Build to live under oceans. Earth no good anymore? Move to the other end of the galaxy. The girl you like doesn't like you back? Build a better one who will play WoW and do anything you want. I put that quip in there because this one is often the most criticized by those in favor of changing the patrist characteristics of society (feminists, for most people) or changing our ways in general. Because there is no fundamental change in our behavior in this eventuality. We just reach some kind of technological advancement quickly (possibly a technological singularity).

So after all those wacky scenarios (yes, the first one is wacky, the universe tends towards change), what could #5 possibly be? (Sociologists drumroll). It is called sane/human/ecological. Sane. Human. Ecological. Not insane. Not dehumanizing. Not going to cause an environmental crisis. This is the world where we call nature a bitch and then run lovingly into her arms to form a symbiotic bond. Sado-masochistic? Yes, a bit. But this is where I bring in my secret weapon: the anthropologist! The anty-whatta? (you say if you don't know). Anthropologists, basically, study human beings, from their origins to today using pretty much anything they can study to get a picture of our species within space and time. Sound vast? It's meant to be. The fact is, that most species, and even us for most of our existence, were pretty much part of our environment and had everything we needed most of the time (think the Garden of Eden). We were connected to it, lived off it and only took as much as we needed (I tried to find Elton John for this part to sing "The Circle of Life", but all I could get was that ruddy anthropologist). This all sounds pretty nice. But what changed? Population growth and...environmental changes, which led to our food sources migrating and dying off. Agriculture. Ranked societies. Industry. Today. (6 words for 10 000 years, not bad huh).

So there's five scenarios. There could be more, but those are the ones that are the most likely. If you were to ask a bunch of physicists instead, you might get "a quasar kills us all". This is again, just food for thought. One last thing: I'm not particularly religious, but I would encourage anyone reading to go through the beginning of Genesis with the transition from foraging to agriculture as well as the whole patrist society concept of the last post in mind. You might find some interesting things.

Feminism: a pejorative label curtesy of society

This post is about why I think empowering women is essential for a fairer world. If that makes me a feminist in your mind, then so be it. But I hope to change your mind, or at least get you thinking. So what's so special about women? And why would I (a man) have to say about them? First, I have to caution that despite my utmost caution, I may phrase things in a way that may offend certain sensibilities - inevitable in such unusual topics - so if you found any part badly formulated, please let me know.

To begin with, we live in a patrist society. Men have power. Traditions and ideas of the past are maintained as much as possible with little change. One can also term this conservatism. Other elements of a patrist society include restricting impulses and creativity, aggressiveness and distrust of emotions. Think of the way the Catholic Church ran things in the middle ages, it epitomizes the idea I'm trying to convey.

Now, we are obviously not a male-dominated society in the same way as it once was in Western society. But, we are far from being the opposite (matrist), which isn't necessarily ideal either.

Now that those notions have been presented, I want to draw attention to the effects on women that living in such a society has. This has to do with how women are still in some ways influenced into playing the submissive or supportive role in a relationship (or "expressive role" as the now stern-faced sociologists would have me say). But where is this influence coming from? Surely women wouldn't willingly agree to play second fiddle to men when in nearly every other aspect of society they're finally managing to catch up? The influence comes from our culture: art, media, interactions, and fashion to name a few. By making it desirable for women to be thin but curvaceous, innocent but experienced and reserved but seductive, we (the West) have created a double standard which continues to confuse women. Why? Because it is impossible to attain. Or at least, if one still wants to be an individual in one's own right and not a Barbie Doll for any man to play with.

On top of this, women are taught to be consumers, more so than men (although this is also changing). Look through your average magazine. Compare the number of products clearly advertised for women as opposed to men. Also compare the space the ad takes up and compare. Unless you're reading Gentlman's Quarterly, you should notice the astounding difference. Because women also earn less on average, their dependence on men for finances is maintained and even heightened by the conspicuous consumption (a nod to the sociologists) that we have pushed women into.

This paints a grim picture of how we still consider women today: objects of desire, to be molded and manipulated to fit a certain aesthetic appealing to men. But is it appealing? Or are men also being taught to be something? Dominant and aggressive perhaps? Taught to be strong and insensitive, confident and active perhaps? This pressure is present, but the emphasis on the hard-to-maintain (at least for most) lean body is not as strong.

My objective here was mostly to bring attention to how we still treat women in a society that often claims to treat men and women equally. But if you read this far, you'll indulge me one last comment.

The reason we should empower women is because when women play a larger role in a group or a state, they tend to organize resources towards improving things like education, health and having clean environments as well as other things which allow people to live a higher standard of living. The UN has made gender equality and making the world a good place to be for women one of its 8 Millennium Development Goals. Just some food for thought.