I've been reading quite a bit of Nietzsche lately. I can't say I understand all of what he writes so far, but I am currently going through what may be his greatest work, Beyond Good and Evil, and I get the impression it is, at least in part, an extended meditation on what it means to be noble, or great-souled. I'd like to quote a passage from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics in which Aristotle speaks of the noble person because Nietzsche's ideas were influenced by Aristotle's description, and because it works as a tentative summary.
So, Aristotle on the noble person:
He is fond of conferring benefits, but ashamed to receive them, because the former is a mark of superiority and the latter of inferiority...It is also charateristic of the great-souled men never to ask help from others, or only with reluctance, but to render aid willingly; and to be haughty towards men of position and fortune, but courteous towards those of moderate station...He must be open both in love and in hate, since concealment shows timidity; and care more for the truth than for what people will think;...he is outspoken and frank, except when speaking with ironical self-depreciation, as he does to common people...He does not bear a grudge , for it is not a mark of greatness of soul to recall things against people, especially the wrongs they have done you, but rather to overlook them. He is...not given to speaking evil himself, even of his enemies, except when he deliberately intends to give offence...Such then being the great-souled man, the corresponding character on the side of deficiency is the small-souled man... (Book IV, Chapter 3)
How much of this can we recognize as the modern version of a noble, great-souled, human being? If very little, what does that say about us and our times? Have we fallen in with what Nietzsche calls the herd morality, as characterized by its small-souled denizens? Nietzsche would probably say as much.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Hitchens, an immersive journalist
Friday, June 20, 2008
Google, my boondoggle, and why the revolution will be summarized
There’s a very interesting article in the current Atlantic Monthly written by Nicholas Carr called, and asking, “Is Google making us stupid?” The author, and, presumably, we the reader, could once wade through large pieces of writing, from novels to long-form articles with ease. Concentration was a virtue and a captured commodity. But we have lost our way. Google, Yahoo, the Internet, etc., have made undivided focus frustratingly difficult. To be sure, it has made some things go a lot smoother as well.
Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.
We’ve gained something, it’s undeniable. But we’ve lost another. Carr on brain plasticity:
The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
It has the ability to reprogram itself, and become reprogrammed within altered environments. Evolution. We spend a considerable amount of time in an information network that values efficiency and immediacy above depth. This will have an effect on us, our minds.
Carr intimates a relationship among concentration, deep thinking, and, even, humanity. Can the way we read, play, chat, and become distracted, online really erode all that?
From The Beatles’ “I’m only Sleeping”:
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy
I don't mind, I think they're crazy
Running everywhere at such a speed
Till they find, there's no need
Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.
We’ve gained something, it’s undeniable. But we’ve lost another. Carr on brain plasticity:
The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
It has the ability to reprogram itself, and become reprogrammed within altered environments. Evolution. We spend a considerable amount of time in an information network that values efficiency and immediacy above depth. This will have an effect on us, our minds.
Carr intimates a relationship among concentration, deep thinking, and, even, humanity. Can the way we read, play, chat, and become distracted, online really erode all that?
From The Beatles’ “I’m only Sleeping”:
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy
I don't mind, I think they're crazy
Running everywhere at such a speed
Till they find, there's no need
Monday, June 16, 2008
I'll describe myself, thank you very much.
I was looking through some old books of mine, when I found Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. I haven't read philosophy in a while, so it was refreshing to read a few chapters from that book. Here's a passage I liked, and found particularly moving:
The drama of an individual life, or of the history of humanity as a whole, is not one in which a preexistent goal is triumphantly reached or tragically not reached. Neither a constant external reality nor an unfailing interior source of inspiration forms a background for such dramas. Instead, to see one’s life, or the life of one’s community, as a dramatic narrative is to see it as a process of Nietzschean self-overcoming. The paradigm of such a narrative is the life of the genius who can say of the relevant portion of the past, “Thus I willed it,” because she has found a way to describe the past which the past never knew, and thereby found a self to be which her precursors never knew was possible.*
In this Nietzschean view, the impulse to think, to inquire, to reweave oneself ever more thoroughly, is not wonder but terror. It is, once again, Bloom’s “horror of finding oneself to be only a copy or replica.” The wonder in which Aristotle believed philosophy to begin was wonder at finding oneself in a world larger, stronger, nobler than oneself. The fear in which Bloom’s poets begin is the fear that one might end one’s days in such a world, a world one never made, an inherited world. The hope of such a poet is that what the past tried to do to her she will succeed in doing to the past: to make the past itself, including those very causal processes which blindly impressed all her own behaving, bear her impress. Success in that enterprise – the enterprise of saying “Thus I willed it” to the past – is success in what Bloom calls “giving birth to oneself.”
*When he writes “because she has found a way to describe the past which the past never knew was possible”, he refers to the individual’s creation of a new language, a new set of metaphors, to describe, or re-describe, the past. Freedom and autonomy find their elbow room with that task.
The drama of an individual life, or of the history of humanity as a whole, is not one in which a preexistent goal is triumphantly reached or tragically not reached. Neither a constant external reality nor an unfailing interior source of inspiration forms a background for such dramas. Instead, to see one’s life, or the life of one’s community, as a dramatic narrative is to see it as a process of Nietzschean self-overcoming. The paradigm of such a narrative is the life of the genius who can say of the relevant portion of the past, “Thus I willed it,” because she has found a way to describe the past which the past never knew, and thereby found a self to be which her precursors never knew was possible.*
In this Nietzschean view, the impulse to think, to inquire, to reweave oneself ever more thoroughly, is not wonder but terror. It is, once again, Bloom’s “horror of finding oneself to be only a copy or replica.” The wonder in which Aristotle believed philosophy to begin was wonder at finding oneself in a world larger, stronger, nobler than oneself. The fear in which Bloom’s poets begin is the fear that one might end one’s days in such a world, a world one never made, an inherited world. The hope of such a poet is that what the past tried to do to her she will succeed in doing to the past: to make the past itself, including those very causal processes which blindly impressed all her own behaving, bear her impress. Success in that enterprise – the enterprise of saying “Thus I willed it” to the past – is success in what Bloom calls “giving birth to oneself.”
*When he writes “because she has found a way to describe the past which the past never knew was possible”, he refers to the individual’s creation of a new language, a new set of metaphors, to describe, or re-describe, the past. Freedom and autonomy find their elbow room with that task.
on silence
By Pico Iyer
Silence, then, could be said to be the ultimate province of trust: it is the place where we trust ourselves to be alone; where we trust others to understand the things we do not say; where we trust a higher harmony to assert itself. We all know how treacherous are words, and how often we use them to paper over embarrassment, or emptiness, or fear of the larger spaces that silence brings. "Words, words, words" commit us to positions we do not really hold, the imperatives of chatter; words are what we use for lies, false promises and gossip. We babble with strangers; with intimates we can be silent. We "make conversation" when we are at a loss; we unmake it when we are alone, or with those so close to us that we can afford to be alone with them.
In love, we are speechless; in awe, we say, words fail us.
Silence, then, could be said to be the ultimate province of trust: it is the place where we trust ourselves to be alone; where we trust others to understand the things we do not say; where we trust a higher harmony to assert itself. We all know how treacherous are words, and how often we use them to paper over embarrassment, or emptiness, or fear of the larger spaces that silence brings. "Words, words, words" commit us to positions we do not really hold, the imperatives of chatter; words are what we use for lies, false promises and gossip. We babble with strangers; with intimates we can be silent. We "make conversation" when we are at a loss; we unmake it when we are alone, or with those so close to us that we can afford to be alone with them.
In love, we are speechless; in awe, we say, words fail us.
Here's an article on war; on whether or not it is caused by innate drives; how we can overcome a pugnacious past; and what may lie in wait to prevent this flight to Brotherhood.
A crucial first step toward ending war is to reject fatalism, in ourselves and in our political leaders. That is the view of the Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, who is renowned for his conservation efforts as well as for his emphasis on the genetic underpinnings of social behavior. A rangy man with a raptor’s long, narrow nose and sharp-eyed gaze, Wilson has not budged from his long-standing position that the propensity for group aggression, including war, is deeply ingrained in our history and nature. He notes, however, that group aggression is highly “labile,” taking many different forms and even vanishing under certain circumstances.
He is therefore confident that we will find ways to cease making war on nature as well as on each other, but it is a race against time and human destructiveness. “I’m optimistic about saving a large part of biodiversity,” he says, “but how much depends on what we do right now. And I think that once we face the problems underlying the origins of tribalism and religious extremism—face them frankly and look for the roots—then we’ll find a solution to those, too, in terms of an informed international negotiation system.” Wilson pauses and adds, “We have no option but optimism.”
A crucial first step toward ending war is to reject fatalism, in ourselves and in our political leaders. That is the view of the Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, who is renowned for his conservation efforts as well as for his emphasis on the genetic underpinnings of social behavior. A rangy man with a raptor’s long, narrow nose and sharp-eyed gaze, Wilson has not budged from his long-standing position that the propensity for group aggression, including war, is deeply ingrained in our history and nature. He notes, however, that group aggression is highly “labile,” taking many different forms and even vanishing under certain circumstances.
He is therefore confident that we will find ways to cease making war on nature as well as on each other, but it is a race against time and human destructiveness. “I’m optimistic about saving a large part of biodiversity,” he says, “but how much depends on what we do right now. And I think that once we face the problems underlying the origins of tribalism and religious extremism—face them frankly and look for the roots—then we’ll find a solution to those, too, in terms of an informed international negotiation system.” Wilson pauses and adds, “We have no option but optimism.”
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Here's a strong criticism of the limits of a work I admire greatly: Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.
Stripping down politics to the profit motive will get you a long way in this world. It can be an especially useful corrective when the “crusade against communism” and “battling terrorism” are constantly invoked as noble motives, and when nothing so crass as economic interests are ever admitted. But, needless to say, the move is reductionist.
Klein’s depiction of a monolithic class of politico-corporate elites is not tailored for every political situation. It is not particularly helpful for recognizing and exploiting the differences between Clintonian “free traders,” Republican realists, and neocon fundamentalists. It provides little guidance for understanding what to make of it when the Weekly Standard opposes permanent normal trade relations with China, a key goal of corporate globalists, on human rights grounds. Nor does it allow for distinctions between different sectors of capital—recognizing, for example, that the interests of the vast tourism industry (which is currently furious about how Bush’s War on Terror has adversely affected its business) may not be the same as those of Halliburton. Finally, it denies out of hand that religious conviction or nationalism, independent of commerce, might be forces in influencing Bush administration policy.
Stripping down politics to the profit motive will get you a long way in this world. It can be an especially useful corrective when the “crusade against communism” and “battling terrorism” are constantly invoked as noble motives, and when nothing so crass as economic interests are ever admitted. But, needless to say, the move is reductionist.
Klein’s depiction of a monolithic class of politico-corporate elites is not tailored for every political situation. It is not particularly helpful for recognizing and exploiting the differences between Clintonian “free traders,” Republican realists, and neocon fundamentalists. It provides little guidance for understanding what to make of it when the Weekly Standard opposes permanent normal trade relations with China, a key goal of corporate globalists, on human rights grounds. Nor does it allow for distinctions between different sectors of capital—recognizing, for example, that the interests of the vast tourism industry (which is currently furious about how Bush’s War on Terror has adversely affected its business) may not be the same as those of Halliburton. Finally, it denies out of hand that religious conviction or nationalism, independent of commerce, might be forces in influencing Bush administration policy.
the devil's in the details
The global warming expert, Tim Flannery, thinks we are approaching a time when cutting greenhouse gas emissions, closing down coal-burning plants, and replacing them with alternate sources of energy, are not enough in themselves. We need to do something more drastic. Injecting the atmosphere with sulphur, therefore changing the colour of our blue skies, may be as necessary as anything if we hope to survive, says Flannery. This global dimming plan would effectively shield us where our ozone could no longer. Yet, tellingly, Flannery admits "The consequences of doing that are unknown". They're probably more than just unknown, I think. They would probably be disasterous, since you can't make radical changes, especially in the environment, and expect all other variables to remain the same. The changes would be pronounced and harsh. Any other ideas?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Our waters will rise, with global warming melting polar ice sheets and higher temperatures causing our seas to expand. People will lose their lives, their livelihoods and homes through dislocation. What are we to do? Build barriers and wait it out.
Bowman and collaborator Douglas Hill have spent seven years shopping around a proposal to build enormous retractable storm surge barriers in three locations around New York, including one straddling the Verrazano Narrows, and another at Throgs Neck, where Long Island Sound meets the East River. Such barriers, rising fifteen metres above sea level, would effectively wall off New York Harbor if a major hurricane sent tsunami-like waves toward the city. “This would be one of the biggest engineering projects in the history of the United States,” Bowman states.
And yet:
given the alarming but ultimately unpredictable acceleration of climate change, there’s no telling how long a given barrier would afford the necessary protection (even if it were properly maintained), and therefore such structures create a false sense of security and a heightened risk for those who depend on them.
Is this not just a feeble attempt to appear hard at work on the environment, its protection, and ours in the event it fails? There are better avenues: more efficient use of energy (in our homes, for one), better public transportation, alternative fuels (cellulosic ethanol seems a worthy candidate)...etc. Barriers should, at best, be considered a sort of last-ditch effort.
Bowman and collaborator Douglas Hill have spent seven years shopping around a proposal to build enormous retractable storm surge barriers in three locations around New York, including one straddling the Verrazano Narrows, and another at Throgs Neck, where Long Island Sound meets the East River. Such barriers, rising fifteen metres above sea level, would effectively wall off New York Harbor if a major hurricane sent tsunami-like waves toward the city. “This would be one of the biggest engineering projects in the history of the United States,” Bowman states.
And yet:
given the alarming but ultimately unpredictable acceleration of climate change, there’s no telling how long a given barrier would afford the necessary protection (even if it were properly maintained), and therefore such structures create a false sense of security and a heightened risk for those who depend on them.
Is this not just a feeble attempt to appear hard at work on the environment, its protection, and ours in the event it fails? There are better avenues: more efficient use of energy (in our homes, for one), better public transportation, alternative fuels (cellulosic ethanol seems a worthy candidate)...etc. Barriers should, at best, be considered a sort of last-ditch effort.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
smile
I feel these two characters make up the internal landscape of the bipolar, at least in part. A sense of despair in the face of impossible goals lends itself to courage and hope, the feeling that it can be done.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Here's a very interesting article on fame, charisma, and the divide between the public image and the "true" selves of some of the talented folks.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
I think most of us have heard the reports on the havoc wrecked by cyclone Nargis in Burma. The official death count is now at 22,464. But, with 41,054 missing and large areas, usually the hardest hit, yet to be researched and accounted for, some estimate 100,000 may have lost their lives. Over 1 million people will be profoundly affected by this disaster, their sources of food disappearing with the coastline. As survivors mingle with the bodies floating in the now murky villages and towns, water sanitation and disease are becoming real threats on the lives of many more people. To make matters worse, the military dictatorship of Burma (to the junta it's Myanmar) has closed their borders to most foreign aid agencies and foreign governments looking to lend a hand.
From the New Yorker: The junta wants the money and supplies, but it doesn’t want the foreigners with their helicopters and expertise, for the same reason that it doesn’t allow journalists to enter Burma: the regime survives by smothering the truth, from its own people and from the outside world. Its sense of threat from the population is so great that the military is refusing to allow monks to shelter refugees in monasteries, fearing a repetition of last September’s peaceful demonstrations.
Some have invoked the UN "responsibility to protect" mandate, which justifies what we might call a humanitarian intervention in the event the local government is either unwilling to defend the basic rights of their citizens, or is the cause of its violation. This, however, is being met by criticism from countries close to Burma, like China (obviously, because if it allows the precedent of humanitarian intervention, it would have to answer for its own abuses) and Indonesia.
One course of action is suggested at the end of the New Yorker article I cited:
Both the Burmese government restrictions and U.S. economic sanctions make it very difficult to give money to local N.G.O.s directly, but it is possible to support their work by donating to the international groups that have longstanding partnerships with local N.G.O.s and community-based organizations (including churches and monasteries).
The expatriate’s list of organizations includes ADRA, CARE, Project HOPE, Save the Children, UNICEF, World Concern, and World Vision.
From the New Yorker: The junta wants the money and supplies, but it doesn’t want the foreigners with their helicopters and expertise, for the same reason that it doesn’t allow journalists to enter Burma: the regime survives by smothering the truth, from its own people and from the outside world. Its sense of threat from the population is so great that the military is refusing to allow monks to shelter refugees in monasteries, fearing a repetition of last September’s peaceful demonstrations.
Some have invoked the UN "responsibility to protect" mandate, which justifies what we might call a humanitarian intervention in the event the local government is either unwilling to defend the basic rights of their citizens, or is the cause of its violation. This, however, is being met by criticism from countries close to Burma, like China (obviously, because if it allows the precedent of humanitarian intervention, it would have to answer for its own abuses) and Indonesia.
One course of action is suggested at the end of the New Yorker article I cited:
Both the Burmese government restrictions and U.S. economic sanctions make it very difficult to give money to local N.G.O.s directly, but it is possible to support their work by donating to the international groups that have longstanding partnerships with local N.G.O.s and community-based organizations (including churches and monasteries).
The expatriate’s list of organizations includes ADRA, CARE, Project HOPE, Save the Children, UNICEF, World Concern, and World Vision.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Beatles in my feet
As a Beatles fanatic since 2002 I thought I'd direct you, whoever that is, to this interesting article on them, written by a professor of psychology and music, Daniel J Levitin.
Paul McCartney may be the closest thing our generation has produced to Schubert - a master of melody, writing songs that seem to have been there all along. Most people don't realize that the well-known tunes Ave Maria and Serenade were written by Schubert (or that his Moment Musical in F so resembles Martha My Dear). McCartney writes with similar universality. His Yesterday has been recorded by more musicians than any other song in history. Its stepwise melody is deceptively complex, drawing from outside the diatonic scale so smoothly that anyone can sing it, yet few can explain what it is that McCartney has done. (And the odd seven-bar phrases hark back to an old Haydn trick of asymmetric phrases in his minuets.)
Paul McCartney may be the closest thing our generation has produced to Schubert - a master of melody, writing songs that seem to have been there all along. Most people don't realize that the well-known tunes Ave Maria and Serenade were written by Schubert (or that his Moment Musical in F so resembles Martha My Dear). McCartney writes with similar universality. His Yesterday has been recorded by more musicians than any other song in history. Its stepwise melody is deceptively complex, drawing from outside the diatonic scale so smoothly that anyone can sing it, yet few can explain what it is that McCartney has done. (And the odd seven-bar phrases hark back to an old Haydn trick of asymmetric phrases in his minuets.)
Obama in the world
Barack Obama's internationalist foreign policy inspires hope in a better future when compared to Bush's shoot-'em-up approach to the world abroad. Obama seems to genuinely want a more cooperative international order.
From the NY Times:
A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing “perception of unfairness” around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but “a world of liberty under law”; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations. In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. “There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.”
Yet, there are still conceivable problems with Obama's foreign policy which should be addressed. Read here to see how Obama may still believe in something like America's moral superiority - an untrue and unpragmatic belief.
From the NY Times:
A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing “perception of unfairness” around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but “a world of liberty under law”; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations. In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. “There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.”
Yet, there are still conceivable problems with Obama's foreign policy which should be addressed. Read here to see how Obama may still believe in something like America's moral superiority - an untrue and unpragmatic belief.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Don't rain on my parade
I think China has control issues. There's Taiwan, Tibet, their silencing of all human rights activists, the baleful record on press and religious freedom, and now an attempt to make the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games rain-free by pre-draining the clouds.
babelfish will give us nothing but babble
Read here about someone's idea to creat a universal translator in the event we're visited by extraterrestrials. I can't help but think it's premise, that there is a universal structure underlying the existing languages on earth and beyond, is false.
Monday, April 21, 2008
George Clooney's historical analysis/determinism
Almost Hegelian in a way.
“My father and I were saying that we’ve been lucky as a country historically. When we needed a constitution – something which has to be really well-handled – we had Thomas Jefferson. Then we had a civil war, which could have destroyed the country, and there was Lincoln. With the Depression, we had Roosevelt. The Cuban missile crisis was the closest we’ve ever come to a nuclear holocaust and there was Kennedy. These are some of the greatest leaders of our time, and then we had 2001 and got unlucky. And, listen, I can’t believe that Bush is an evil man – I just think he wasn’t equipped. But maybe 2001 or September 11 wasn’t that moment – although they were two of the biggest moments in our country’s history – but now that our economy is in the tank, our face across the world is probably at its most blemished, our country has been assailed, the fact that we don’t necessarily adhere to the Geneva Convention… maybe in terms of that moment when you absolutely need someone to lead, not manage the country, maybe it’s now.
“Because here’s the thing that’s sort of astonishing. Even at the time of the civil rights movement or Vietnam – when kids actually had something to lose – they still didn’t show up at the polls. But you know what? They’re voting right now like you cannot believe. So maybe this is that moment where, for the first time in our history, kids are going to understand that they have to take the reins of our country and that may be why Barack Obama is around right now.”
Almost Hegelian in a way.
“My father and I were saying that we’ve been lucky as a country historically. When we needed a constitution – something which has to be really well-handled – we had Thomas Jefferson. Then we had a civil war, which could have destroyed the country, and there was Lincoln. With the Depression, we had Roosevelt. The Cuban missile crisis was the closest we’ve ever come to a nuclear holocaust and there was Kennedy. These are some of the greatest leaders of our time, and then we had 2001 and got unlucky. And, listen, I can’t believe that Bush is an evil man – I just think he wasn’t equipped. But maybe 2001 or September 11 wasn’t that moment – although they were two of the biggest moments in our country’s history – but now that our economy is in the tank, our face across the world is probably at its most blemished, our country has been assailed, the fact that we don’t necessarily adhere to the Geneva Convention… maybe in terms of that moment when you absolutely need someone to lead, not manage the country, maybe it’s now.
“Because here’s the thing that’s sort of astonishing. Even at the time of the civil rights movement or Vietnam – when kids actually had something to lose – they still didn’t show up at the polls. But you know what? They’re voting right now like you cannot believe. So maybe this is that moment where, for the first time in our history, kids are going to understand that they have to take the reins of our country and that may be why Barack Obama is around right now.”
Sunday, April 20, 2008
notes on food crisis
As the food crisis continues, it's a good idea to find the causes and possible solutions. Most will lay the blame squarely on the governments of some developed states. The subsidies to produce ethanol, rather than food, that they grant their farmers has lowered the supply, increased the demand, and raised the global price of food. Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has blamed such policies for creating mass starvation and has said they amount to "silent mass murder". Canada is very involved in this process, to be sure, because "Canada's Conservative government, playing to the farm lobby and a coterie of rent-seeking corporations, has showered millions on the biofuels market."
Of course, like most things, this is not a simple issue. Taking biofuels out of the equation will not necessarily solve this problem. Some say monocrops (the mass production of a single food in a given environment) is the real cause of the current food crisis...but not too many people have been talking about that.
Anyways, we should only hope this food crisis will be resolved immediately and lead to clear and practical reforms for a more equitable and just future.
Of course, like most things, this is not a simple issue. Taking biofuels out of the equation will not necessarily solve this problem. Some say monocrops (the mass production of a single food in a given environment) is the real cause of the current food crisis...but not too many people have been talking about that.
Anyways, we should only hope this food crisis will be resolved immediately and lead to clear and practical reforms for a more equitable and just future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)