Stupid Kids

This came from San Francisco columnist Mark Morford: "...the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens. Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog."

The whole column can be found at here. The title of which is, by the way, "American kids, dumber than dirt". Pretty pessimistic. In it he argues that public schools are filled with kids raised in intellectual voids, whose brains have been miswired as the result of too much t.v. at too young an age, poor nutrition, and an educational system that is focused on testing rather than developing thinkers. When I hear these things I generally attribute it to what he termed, "generational relativity", the habit of crabby old men to think every teenager is an idiot and that his generation and those that came before were more virtuous, moral, hard working, etc. than the current. And to a certain extent I think that's what this is. But only to a certain extent.
As a teacher I know too much of what he is saying to be true. I do not believe that we are really dedicated to a democratic educational system. We are not dedicated to passing on the values necessary to the preservation of democracy and civil rights in this or any country. We are far more concerned with furthering the nationalistic mythology that passes for social studies than we are about studying civilization, understanding the diverse nature of the world and supporting real democratic values by developing citizens who consider it their responsibility to to knowledgeably criticize their government. These are the kinds of things we are definitely not doing. Well educated citizens are capable of articulately debating with one another the important issues of the present while having a strong understanding of the past events that have brought us here.

That is not what is expected of a public school education in America. An America education promotes the study of skills that can make one productive in the economy. An American education stresses submission to authority. A proper social studies education is expected to build a foundation of patriotism and nationalism with a structure built of trivial knowledge about presidents and captains of industry. It is the type of education that leads to fascism or a dictatorship of the majority.

Until we dedicate ourselves to a real public education, we are screwed. And right now we aren't even close.

pic from: http://outreach.thecollegetrack.com/matriarch/images/classroom.jpg

Application for President

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who believes they should be president of the United States. The fake humility with which most of them approach the job is vomit inducing. These are people with Trump-size egos and ambitions to match, not reluctantly drafted civil servants just doing their duty. Since we are already being inundated with the flood of mendacity that is the presidential (and soon to be congressional) pre-season, I've been thinking how most of what candidates are asked rarely passes my bullshit detector. Not just the answers, mind you: I expect evasiveness and outright fabrication from the candidates themselves. It is the questions. Rarely are they given a prompt to discuss specific policy issues. When they are, and when they are predictably evasive and pandering to imaginary Joe and and Jane America, their interrogators rarely follow up. Not sure how to fix that one, except to say that Wolf Blitzer does not belong within 20 miles of a mayoral debate let alone one for president. But, we can encourage more direct, even biting, questions about topics that matter, rather then asking them to say something nice about the candidate standing next to them. Here's a few that I've thought might be more helpful.

1. As the American lifestyle is completely unsustainable due the requirements of habitat loss, polluting energy, non-renewable resources, and the military action necessary to sustain it, what specific actions are you going to try to implement to make our economy more sustainable now and in the future?
Likely answer from generic candidate number 1: First of all let me say that I believe in the promise of the American future. We have always risen above difficulty and adversity and we will continue to do so. The American people defeated tyranny in World War II and the presided over the liberation of millions from godless communism during the Cold War, and I believe that in this, we will persevere as well.
Follow up: Perhaps you didn't understand the question: I asked what specific strategies you had in place to end America's gluttonous appetite for resources.
Follow up answer from from generic candidate 1: Blah, blah, blah, America, blah, blah, blah, freedom, blah, blah, blah, greatest country in the world.

2. As cars and trucks are major emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States, do you support limits on urban sprawl, the reduction of subsidies to car companies and oil companies in the form of more than 40 billion a year in highway money and investing a large portion of that in cleaner, more efficient transportation technologies like railroads?
LAFGCN2: Unlike candidate number 1, I am dedicated to the protection of the environment. When I was a kid growing up in (insert state here), I used love going to my grandparents house out in the country. I'd spend days out there chasing butterflies, lying in the sun, and just appreciating all the goodness in God's creation. I believe we have a responsibility to protect all of that, and I believe the American people wisely recognize that.
Follow up: Are you people having difficulty hearing the questions up there? We aren't interested in your idyllic childhood, we want to know if you'll push for less federal money on highways and more federal money on railroads.
FUAFGC2: Blah, blah, blah, congress, blah, blah, blah, my voting record, blah, blah, blah, I liked riding trains as a child, blah, blah, blah, economic growth.

3. China has recently surpassed the United States as the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. As the rest of the world races to match America's standard of living, greenhouse gas emissions will grow exponentially, exacerbating global warming. What strategies do you have in mind to encourage cleaner development in underdeveloped nations?

4. Like a drunken super bowl hero caught with a 14 year-old prostitute, the United States has completely destroyed its image as defender of freedom, etc., etc. What tangible steps will you take to restore that image? For instance, would you close Guantanamo Bay? Would you stop sending more aid to Israel than to any other nation on earth? Would you stop sending soldiers to occupy foreign countries to fulfill narrow political aims? Would you stop hypocritically supporting totalitarian regimes while claiming that's why we need to be in Iraq to support democracy?

5. Will you close Guantanamo, restore Habeas Corpus, and give all persons detained by the U.S. the right to a public trial?

6. Are you willing to set aside nationalist aims to work in cooperation with other nations to find solutions to the problems facing the world, even if that means asking the American people to sacrifice cheap fuel, i-pods, etc. ?

7. How do you think the world should limit population growth?

8. Do you see war, as a technique of foreign policy, as unsustainable due to its cost in human life, material, energy, political capital and due to the fact that it almost never secures it's proponents objectives?

These are just a few questions I think ought to be given serious consideration by national candidates for any office. But they won't. Because we're screwed.

Trouble With Governance

In my last post I stated that limits needed to be placed on economic activity and that these limits were to be imposed by a governing body of some sort, rather than self imposed by individuals. The reason I state this is that left to their own devises, even the best intentioned individual will see his or her small part in the 6.5 billion whole so insignificant that self interest carries the day. It doesn't matter that I spray chemicals on the weeds that grow in the cracks of my driveway, it is an insignificant amount of harm. Of course, isolated, it would be, but the point is that millions of others think and do the same thing, and billions of others are often engaging in environmentally destructive and ultimately unsustainable behavior out of sheer need for survival. When we are looking at the scale of human economic activity, it will require far more knowledge than individuals often have and far more sacrifice from the developed world than individuals are willing to make.

This brings up a very tricky issue: who makes the decisions? What criteria will be used in setting these limits? How do we balance the liberal idea of personal freedom with the idea of imposed restrictions on economic activity? And, how do we deal with the constant problem that governments are notoriously inefficient and corrupt, even in countries with long histories of democracy?

The various experiments in democracy and capitalism have been going on long enough for us to glean some lessons from them. First, and perhaps most importantly and most difficultly, we can not afford to allow governments to define and pursue narrow nationalistic interests. These interests are rarely in the long term interest of the nation and are of course counter to the goal of sustainability and peace. There are literally thousands of examples of this, of course. The most recent and most obvious might be the American invasion of Iraq. Though it may have served some narrow interests (ideologues wanting to prove their neo-conservative ideas, free marketers wanting same, those who wanted to reform the balance of power in the Middle East, ridding the region of Sadam, guaranteeing access to the large proven oil reserves), the long term consequences for Iraq, for the region and for the credibility of American intentions and American values will no doubt be severe. To prevent these sorts of short-sighted unilateral international action, sovereign nations will have to give up some freedom and strictly adhere to international agreements and a strong internationally recognized governing body, such as the UN. Internationalim should prevail over Nationalism in all actions, including military actions, tariffs, treaties, etc. Nationalism has to be recognized as an impediment to sustainability and environmental protection.

Second, in all governments, especially the most powerful governments (America, China, etc.) absolute transparency must be the foundation of governance and international relations. Secrecy in government breeds mistrust and corruption. National "secrets" are more dangerous as secrets than as knowledge. This sort of transparency needs to be written into constitutions and international agreements. All attempts at secrecy, and all corruption needs to be both publicly acknowledged and prosecuted. There should be no executive privilege of any sort. Also strict term limits can help prevent the sort of election cycle decision making that goes on now.

The sorts of people who are going to make decisions about the limits of economic activity can not be subject to the whims of the political system: they should not be political appointees. They should be economists, biologists, sociologists, physicists, climatologists, etc. They should not be politicians. They should not be tied down by things like constituencies or special interests. They will be civil servants who meet minimum requirements in order to hold their posts.

We already acknowledge that there ought to be limits to economic activity, this is just an expansion of an already accepted idea.

(One) Trouble with Capitalism

I struggle with capitalism and free markets. On the one hand, it fosters innovation, some good and some bad. On the other, left unchecked, it leads to consolidation of power and wealth. And there's always the tricky issue of labor. Labor isn't just a cost, its people. If those people have too little power and they're in Sinclair’s Jungle, working twelve hour days, losing the occasional limb and getting a nickel an hour. If they have too much power, they create the true workers paradise: as little work as possible for as much pay as possible. Productivity stagnates, profits plummet, chaos ensues.

The biggest issue related to capitalism, however, is that it is dependent on continued growth. This growth, of course, is a myth. Though the economic activity of the world has indeed grown at frightening speed over the last century, it ultimately has limits. Why? Because the stresses put on the environment by human activity, much of it motivated by capitalism (though some, like the depletion of the Amazon rain forest, is carried out by individuals lowest on capitalisms food chain, as opposed to, say, Alcoa). There's a catch 22 here. Though continued economic activity is ultimately undermining the environmental stability our species has enjoyed up to this point, it appears that as a country's average household income increases, some types of stresses on the environment will decrease. For example, the world's most desperately poor often depend on fire wood for fuel. This will lead, often, to deforestation. As their lot in life improves, however, they are more likely to depend on other sources of fuel, lessening the impact of millions of people scavenging for fire wood.

So the simple solution is to simply redistribute wealth, thus reducing those immediate stresses to the environment, right? Sort of. People with higher standards of living, like those in say the US or Japan or Belgium aren't wantonly cutting down their last trees for fuel. They are also likely to have fewer children. This is good. However, wealthier people also tend to consume much more in resources than their poor neighbors, the most obvious resource being petroleum. So called "developed" nations produced far more CO2 emissions than so called "under-developed" countries. Hmmm... seems like we're screwed.

Ahem.

However, there might be some way out of this. Free market capitalism may some day result in a more equitable distribution of wealth (though certainly some will continue to be "more equal" than others). But in order to get there, we are going to end up with more strip mines, more CO2 emissions and more waste than the planet and its inhabitants (all of 'em, not just us) can handle. There needs to be limits. There needs to be a recognition that the whole world can not live at the level and wealth and consumption of the United States, and that includes the United States. After all, an American living in 2000 square foot, air conditioned home with two cars in the garage is a mighty hypocrite if he says, "oh, well, I can live this way, but there needs to be limits to economic growth in the Sudan. The environment, you know."

We live in a land of excess. Of waste. And everyone else wants to get here (figuratively, though sometimes literally, of course). The problem is, "here" is unsustainable.

So there need to be limits.

But from whence comes said limits? Who is going to ask the American public, as well as the Japanese, the Germans, the Chinese, the Rwandans, the El Salvadorans to make sacrifices? Well, I can tell you this: if Americans don't cut back on consumption and growth, there is certainly no good reason for anyone in other countries to.

A change in the culture is in order, but that is slow going my friends.

I can't help but think that the limits must be imposed from the top. This is counter to my belief that the only meaningful and permanent change can occur when culture changes, when beliefs change, but we may be at a crisis point, and by the time we decide that excess is bad, it might be too late.

Next... the trouble with government imposed limits, of course.

A Start

When you see that your society and your government are engaged in destructive activity, Thoreau suggested that you engage in some civil disobedience. Failing to overturn a policy or societal behavior should lead one to at least withdraw support. So he stopped paying taxes he believed were supporting an unjust war. He was right, it was an imperialistic war (with Mexico, we took more than half of all of Mexico as a result), but what did his little protest do? Nothing, except that we are still talking about it as an example today. Each of us has the opportunity to be an example to those around us, to encourage others to take those first steps toward developing a culture dedicated to peace and sustainability. Riding my bike isn't going to end global warming, but more of my coworkers and friends and family may begin to consider doing the same and they in turn might encourage their friends and family. Change is slow. But we need to start.

So... where do we start? Here's a list that I suspect will continue to grow.

-Throw out your TV. Now. It contains programs and commercials that are perpetuating the type of hyper-consumer thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Let's start with energy:

Household Energy:
-Plant trees around your house to keep it cooler.
-Open your windows at night.
-Install ceiling fans.
-Get used to it being a little warmer in your house.
-Turn off lights when you leave rooms.
-Trade all of those incandescent bulbs for CFLs (compact florescent lights) or LED (light emitting diode) bulbs-- they use WAY less energy.
-Add insulation to your attic.
-Wear a sweater.
-Hang your clothes on a line to dry.
-STOP watering your lawn. You'll mow less, too.
-If you have a small yard, use an old fashioned push reel mower.
-If you have a big yard, get an electric mower.
-Turn off your computer when you are done using it.
-Wrap your water heater in a heat conserving blanket. Turn it down. Or get rid of it. There are cool products that heat water as you need it. They're called tankless water heaters. Very smart.
-Move into a smaller home, or consider an apartment.

Petroleum:
-Stop eating meat.
-Buy local. Go to farmers markets, etc.
-Grow your own. Even a little will make a difference (remember the "victory gardens" of
WWII).
-DRIVE LESS: car pool, walk, take the bus, RIDE YOUR BIKE, ride the train, move closer to
work, live in a city, abandon the exurbs and suburbs.
-Drive smarter: start paying attention to your driving habits. Drive the speed limit, slowly start
from stoplights, coast to stoplights, coast down hills, keep your tires inflated properly. Check
out more advanced techniques: http://www.hypermiling.com/
-Fly less: this one is hard for a lot of people. We've developed a habit of extreme mobility.
Taking just a couple domestic flights a year doubles your household energy use. Take the
train, take a bus, or simply stay home more.
-Shop less, buy less stuff, buy stuff that uses less packaging.
-Stop using PLASTIC BAGS!! Don't take a bag for a few items. Bring your own bags for lots of stuff (groceries), or reuse the bags already in your home.

Here's a place to look for more energy reducing strategies:
http://www.ase.org/section/_audience/consumers