It’s truly heartening that the statements by CNN.com readers and the follow-up comments by others contain almost none of the ridiculous claims voiced with such misplaced fervor by all of “God’s Warriors”—Jewish, Islamic or Christian—portrayed so accurately by Christiane Amanpour in her outstanding six-hour analysis. The feedback is available at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/23/faith.reader.feedback/index.html
As observed by several insightful commentators, what is fundamentally under attack is not religion but what may be the United States’ best gift to the world, the wall of separation between church and state enshrined in our Constitution’s First Amendment. The Founders had experienced state religion, sects that claimed to have the only truth about God, and persecution by religionists in God’s name. The First Amendment religion clauses were crafted specifically and consciously to keep those abuses from happening here.
The blood-thirsty insistence by “God’s Warriors” that they must destroy anyone who disagrees with them is the strongest present-day confirmation that that the wall of separation is the perfect antidote to intolerant self-worship masquerading as faith—and that the sooner it is adopted in every nation on earth, the safer the world will be.
Nowhere is it more urgent than in Jerusalem, where the three major religions need to affirm together that all of their claims have some historical justification, and that the only way they can enjoy their own claims is by allowing the other two religions to enjoy theirs in the same time and space.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Selective Grief: Why We Prefer Spectacular Deaths to Preventable Ones
Meghan Daum, a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times, notes that about a million people die every week. But rather than focus on the big killers that could be reduced by better public policy, planning, funding and research—e.g., U.S. deaths from heart disease at one every 36 seconds, or cancer at 42,000 a month, or vehicle accidents at 3,500 a month—we obsess on news stories about plane crashes, bridge collapses and mine cave-ins. Our attention span also favors those who die "too soon" and in our own country, over larger catastrophes suffered by grown-ups or abroad. She suggests we do this because the real risks hit so close to home that most of us do our utmost to put them out of our minds entirely.
The complete column below is also available at http://www.meghandaum.com/latimes_column_2007.htm
Death by numbers
We're obsessed with plane crashes and bridge collapses, yet we pay little attention to the stuff that kills the rest of us.
August 18, 2007
On any given day, an average of 148,000 people will die.
That means over a million people have died in the last week. Nearly 5 million have died since around this time last month, which, incidentally, was exactly when we were briefly bombarded with the news that 199 people were killed in a Brazilian airliner crash.
Other deaths and possible deaths we've heard about since then include the 11 victims found so far in the Interstate 35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis; the six miners missing and three rescuers killed in a Utah coal mine; hundreds dead in the earthquake in Peru.
To a somewhat lesser extent, we've also heard about 100-plus troops and the 2,000-plus civilians reportedly killed in the Iraq war in the last month. There was also news of the passing of several celebrities, including evangelist Tammy Faye Messner, talk-show host Merv Griffin and baseball's Phil Rizzuto.
For all the ink, video footage and treacly Larry King segments devoted to these deaths, it should come as no surprise that they represent a fraction of a fraction of the number of people who have died since around the last time a new moon appeared in the sky.
Based on estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were about 3,500 automobile-related deaths during that monthlong period. U.S. cancer deaths hover around 42,000 a month. As for heart disease, the American Heart Assn. tells us that someone dies of cardiovascular disease every 36 seconds. And that's just in this country.
As staggering as these numbers are, they don't seem to scare or interest us nearly as much as things like plane crashes, mountain lion attacks, deadly roller coaster mishaps or avian flu. And because the news media is savvy about (and complicit in) our fears and fascinations, we are fed an endless supply of death news that has little to do with how most people actually die. Nonetheless, death by falling asteroid seems infinitely more real than death by cholesterol.
Call it selective fear, selective mourning. It may be an act of denial, but it's also an act of self-protection. Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics suggest that the lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are about 1 in 20,000. Those same figures put the chances of dying in a car accident about 1 in 100. So why, when our plane is taxiing down the runway, do many of us still indulge in various acts of magical thinking (if we can name the last 12 presidents the wing won't fall off) even after blithely getting in our cars and making what is, statistically speaking, the far more perilous drive to the airport?
The most obvious answer is that the real risks (and, by extension, the multitude of daily tragedies those risks engender) simply hit too close to home. We don't think about car accidents and heart disease not because we think it won't happen to us but because we suspect or even assume it will. Given the inevitably, our response is to put it out of our minds entirely.
All that freed-up mental space leaves plenty of room to obsess about the proverbial lightning strike. Take the case of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Yes, it was the kind of visually intense story that television news can't get enough of, and, yes, death toll estimates were initially as high as 80. But within a few days, it seemed clear that far fewer people had died. And although that doesn't make the bridge collapse (or, for that matter, the subsequent Utah mine collapse) any less of a tragedy, it does make you wonder what other stories were bumped from the headlines in favor of breathless, around-the-clock coverage of the search-and-rescue operation, the victims' families and the ensuing presidential visit.
Death doesn't discriminate, but at least when it comes to the deaths of strangers, neither is it immune to certain hierarchical precepts. A cursory glance at what we pay most attention to suggests that grand spectacle rules the day. Sinking ferryboats trump bus accidents, but plane crashes, with their unspeakable, almost supernatural brand of horror, are the most riveting of all.
Young victims, naturally, hold more emotional currency than their adult counterparts, making the school bus crash a far better candidate for selective mourning than the commuter train derailment, which is in turn far more captivating than the deadly highway pileup.
Mammoth disasters like the Indian Ocean tsunami aside, small-scale blight on home soil will almost always catch more eyeballs than larger events far away. As the death toll in Peru soared past 500, on TV at least, it was the Utah mine tragedy we couldn't get enough of.
Meanwhile, 3,000 people, mostly sub-Saharan African children, will die today of malaria with nary an Associated Press story to spread the news.
We care, but the diseases and the car wrecks that kill thousands of us every day are so common that they're the opposite of news. They're also usually too frightening to contemplate. Freak accidents, in contrast, are freakishly comforting.
© Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
The complete column below is also available at http://www.meghandaum.com/latimes_column_2007.htm
Death by numbers
We're obsessed with plane crashes and bridge collapses, yet we pay little attention to the stuff that kills the rest of us.
August 18, 2007
On any given day, an average of 148,000 people will die.
That means over a million people have died in the last week. Nearly 5 million have died since around this time last month, which, incidentally, was exactly when we were briefly bombarded with the news that 199 people were killed in a Brazilian airliner crash.
Other deaths and possible deaths we've heard about since then include the 11 victims found so far in the Interstate 35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis; the six miners missing and three rescuers killed in a Utah coal mine; hundreds dead in the earthquake in Peru.
To a somewhat lesser extent, we've also heard about 100-plus troops and the 2,000-plus civilians reportedly killed in the Iraq war in the last month. There was also news of the passing of several celebrities, including evangelist Tammy Faye Messner, talk-show host Merv Griffin and baseball's Phil Rizzuto.
For all the ink, video footage and treacly Larry King segments devoted to these deaths, it should come as no surprise that they represent a fraction of a fraction of the number of people who have died since around the last time a new moon appeared in the sky.
Based on estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were about 3,500 automobile-related deaths during that monthlong period. U.S. cancer deaths hover around 42,000 a month. As for heart disease, the American Heart Assn. tells us that someone dies of cardiovascular disease every 36 seconds. And that's just in this country.
As staggering as these numbers are, they don't seem to scare or interest us nearly as much as things like plane crashes, mountain lion attacks, deadly roller coaster mishaps or avian flu. And because the news media is savvy about (and complicit in) our fears and fascinations, we are fed an endless supply of death news that has little to do with how most people actually die. Nonetheless, death by falling asteroid seems infinitely more real than death by cholesterol.
Call it selective fear, selective mourning. It may be an act of denial, but it's also an act of self-protection. Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics suggest that the lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are about 1 in 20,000. Those same figures put the chances of dying in a car accident about 1 in 100. So why, when our plane is taxiing down the runway, do many of us still indulge in various acts of magical thinking (if we can name the last 12 presidents the wing won't fall off) even after blithely getting in our cars and making what is, statistically speaking, the far more perilous drive to the airport?
The most obvious answer is that the real risks (and, by extension, the multitude of daily tragedies those risks engender) simply hit too close to home. We don't think about car accidents and heart disease not because we think it won't happen to us but because we suspect or even assume it will. Given the inevitably, our response is to put it out of our minds entirely.
All that freed-up mental space leaves plenty of room to obsess about the proverbial lightning strike. Take the case of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Yes, it was the kind of visually intense story that television news can't get enough of, and, yes, death toll estimates were initially as high as 80. But within a few days, it seemed clear that far fewer people had died. And although that doesn't make the bridge collapse (or, for that matter, the subsequent Utah mine collapse) any less of a tragedy, it does make you wonder what other stories were bumped from the headlines in favor of breathless, around-the-clock coverage of the search-and-rescue operation, the victims' families and the ensuing presidential visit.
Death doesn't discriminate, but at least when it comes to the deaths of strangers, neither is it immune to certain hierarchical precepts. A cursory glance at what we pay most attention to suggests that grand spectacle rules the day. Sinking ferryboats trump bus accidents, but plane crashes, with their unspeakable, almost supernatural brand of horror, are the most riveting of all.
Young victims, naturally, hold more emotional currency than their adult counterparts, making the school bus crash a far better candidate for selective mourning than the commuter train derailment, which is in turn far more captivating than the deadly highway pileup.
Mammoth disasters like the Indian Ocean tsunami aside, small-scale blight on home soil will almost always catch more eyeballs than larger events far away. As the death toll in Peru soared past 500, on TV at least, it was the Utah mine tragedy we couldn't get enough of.
Meanwhile, 3,000 people, mostly sub-Saharan African children, will die today of malaria with nary an Associated Press story to spread the news.
We care, but the diseases and the car wrecks that kill thousands of us every day are so common that they're the opposite of news. They're also usually too frightening to contemplate. Freak accidents, in contrast, are freakishly comforting.
© Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Monday, August 20, 2007
U.S. Infrastructure: The Free Ride Is Over!
In the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse, editorial cartoons like this highlight one reason why the wealthiest country on earth counts a staggering 75,621 “structurally deficient” bridges.
Along with other significant parts of our infrastructure (like the old steam pipes under New York City, the levees in New Orleans, and airport capacity in several cities), our highways and bridges are suffering from decades of under-funding and neglect.
But there is a bigger culprit. Our infrastructures are decaying and getting dangerous because for 30 years American voters have bought the myth that we can enjoy a safe, efficient, economically productive public order without really paying for it. So many taxes have been cut at the federal, state and local levels that no government has the resources to cover basic cash flow, let alone the basic capital maintenance and improvements necessary to keep infrastructures from crumbling.
Nine years ago, an analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, a long-time cheerleader for 20th-century U.S. conservatism, said the conservative movement was born June 6, 1978, when California’s voters passed Proposition 13. See http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-30-98.html.
The initiative said “The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property.” It reduced California’s property tax revenue by 57%. And it virtually prohibited any future revision—requiring a 2/3 vote of both houses of the state legislature before any new state tax could be enacted.
Under the conservative mantra “That government is best which governs least,” Proposition 13’s spirit and practice have permeated American politics ever since. The sad state of our infrastructures nationwide is ample testimony to Proposition 13’s failure to provide for government’s most basic responsibilities.
Three things are obvious. A course correction is long overdue. Billions are needed to address just the highway problems we face. And no government in the United States is collecting enough revenue to begin the most urgent repairs.
The least painful quick-fix I’ve seen lately is a proposal by columnist Neal Peirce to levy a federal excise tax on the purchase of any new vehicle, calculated on road wear-and-tear based on weight-per-wheel. His proposal is at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5064993.html
This excise tax would have minimal negative impact on the economy or even motor vehicle sales. Peirce argues that the tax should average at least several hundred dollars per vehicle—“chump change in the prices haggled over each new vehicle. But the revenue would be a sure generator of needed billions for the roadways.”
Such a ”Big New Tax” would avoid the political pitfalls of “the long-battered gas tax.” He says it was Congress’ awful record on transportation funding and irresponsible transportation earmarks that enabled President Bush to dismiss the recently proposed 5-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax. Peirce would dedicate the revenue from an excise tax on vehicles to a bridge and road safety repair fund, then supplement it with other user-fees for other critical infrastructure needs.
He would agree that the free ride started by Proposition 13 has come to an end. And he has fightin’ words for those who deny it: “To the visceral anti-taxers, I say: Wake up, smell the coffee. If you don’t want to pay for roads, stop driving.”
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Christians and U.S. Military Treat Gays Shamefully—And Cheer Each Another On
In a print editorial today, the Houston Chronicle decries the shameful treatment of two gay Desert Storm veterans and their families by a Dallas-area Baptist mega-church—and says their public humiliation by the church only compounds how the U.S. military disrespects the service of gay people with its Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
One of the men, 46-year old Cecil Sinclair, died while awaiting a heart transplant. Sinclair’s brother was a janitor at the church and a member of the congregation. High Point Church reached out to Cecil during his illness. While he was hospitalized, a church minister met Paul Wagner, his gay life partner and a member of the armed forces for 16 years. The church scheduled the funeral, aware that the Turtle Creek Chorale, a Dallas gay men’s chorus, would sing.
But the day before the funeral, after Sinclair’s obituary ran, Pastor Gary Simmons abruptly cancelled the memorial service.
The Chronicle, not persuaded that any reason given by the church justified its action, said High Point’s treatment of the men and their families “ranged from bumbling to insulting.” Acknowledging that the church had a right to reject gays on religious grounds, the editorial said “such disrespect toward a U.S. veteran is galling.”
Yet it noted that the military’s own disrespect for its gay and lesbian service-members encourages such treatment elsewhere. Despite recent polls showing that 79% of Americans believe that openly gay people should be allowed to serve, and even 49% of Republicans in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military continues to enforce the policy. The policy has deprived the armed forces of thousands of gay specialists in languages and technology vital to prosecuting the war against terrorists: rather than strengthening the nation’s safety, it has weakened it.
The Chronicle concludes: “Officials at High Point Church may not see the full humanity of gay men and women. But other Americans, increasingly, appreciate their contributions, especially in the military. The fitting tribute is to let them serve in the armed forces without having to keep their nature and identity a secret.”
The editorial is at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5054460.html
The newspaper’s call for an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is commendable. Its condemnation of the church’s behavior does not go nearly far enough.
From the perspective of constitutional law, the church’s right to oppose same-sex partners is unassailable. But by any standard, the church’s behavior is unkind and, by the standards Jesus preached, blatantly uncharitable. Furthermore, it rests on erroneous interpretations of biblical texts and a theology that is several decades out of date.
I addressed those theological deficiencies in postings on 3/12/07, 3/23/07, 5/14/07, 5/16/07 and 6/5/07, as well as in a chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation at http://home.comcast.net/~creativeadvance/P2Ch2.pdf
Those open to listening to that analysis and argument might find them persuasive. Those who revere ideology over fact and truth will persist in behavior like that of High Point Church, no matter what anyone says.
One of the men, 46-year old Cecil Sinclair, died while awaiting a heart transplant. Sinclair’s brother was a janitor at the church and a member of the congregation. High Point Church reached out to Cecil during his illness. While he was hospitalized, a church minister met Paul Wagner, his gay life partner and a member of the armed forces for 16 years. The church scheduled the funeral, aware that the Turtle Creek Chorale, a Dallas gay men’s chorus, would sing.
But the day before the funeral, after Sinclair’s obituary ran, Pastor Gary Simmons abruptly cancelled the memorial service.
The Chronicle, not persuaded that any reason given by the church justified its action, said High Point’s treatment of the men and their families “ranged from bumbling to insulting.” Acknowledging that the church had a right to reject gays on religious grounds, the editorial said “such disrespect toward a U.S. veteran is galling.”
Yet it noted that the military’s own disrespect for its gay and lesbian service-members encourages such treatment elsewhere. Despite recent polls showing that 79% of Americans believe that openly gay people should be allowed to serve, and even 49% of Republicans in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military continues to enforce the policy. The policy has deprived the armed forces of thousands of gay specialists in languages and technology vital to prosecuting the war against terrorists: rather than strengthening the nation’s safety, it has weakened it.
The Chronicle concludes: “Officials at High Point Church may not see the full humanity of gay men and women. But other Americans, increasingly, appreciate their contributions, especially in the military. The fitting tribute is to let them serve in the armed forces without having to keep their nature and identity a secret.”
The editorial is at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5054460.html
The newspaper’s call for an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is commendable. Its condemnation of the church’s behavior does not go nearly far enough.
From the perspective of constitutional law, the church’s right to oppose same-sex partners is unassailable. But by any standard, the church’s behavior is unkind and, by the standards Jesus preached, blatantly uncharitable. Furthermore, it rests on erroneous interpretations of biblical texts and a theology that is several decades out of date.
I addressed those theological deficiencies in postings on 3/12/07, 3/23/07, 5/14/07, 5/16/07 and 6/5/07, as well as in a chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation at http://home.comcast.net/~creativeadvance/P2Ch2.pdf
Those open to listening to that analysis and argument might find them persuasive. Those who revere ideology over fact and truth will persist in behavior like that of High Point Church, no matter what anyone says.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Bush to 'Turd Blossom:' "If I Had Another Brain, It'd Be Lonesome"
One biographer called Karl Rove "Bush's brain." But The Nation, which prides itself on imparting "Unconventional Wisdom Since 1865," says W got closer when he named Rove 'Turd Blossom,' and Rove shouldn't leave till he cleans up after himself. Following are some paragraphs of The Nation's article at http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=222612
Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror.
But leaving is too good for Rove. He was Bush's partner in the Iraq war, yet he (like other Bush aides, including, most recently, Dan Bartlett) are abandoning ship before the fight is done. Rove has argued that the Iraq war is essential for the survival of the United States (that is, for all of our families). So how can he walk away with the war not won?
In June 2006, Rove gave a speech to New Hampshire Republicans and blasted Democrats for advocating "cutting and running" in Iraq. He said of the Democrats, "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going...to be with you for the tough battles." But isn't Rove now doing the same on a personal scale? He is departing the White House when the going in Iraq is as tough as it ever was.
In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of Tom and Daisy, "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Rove is certainly more careful than Fitzgerald's characters--careful when it comes to politics and doing whatever is necessary to win. But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad.
Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest did so with little understanding and with insufficient planning, and they sold the war to the public with bad information and blatant misrepresentations. (Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group that devised the prewar messaging.) Rove deserves not reward but punishment. A fitting sentence would be for Rove to stay to the bitter end so he can sweep up the turds he is now leaving behind.
Of course, if Karl hits the road as planned, we can always treasure his send-off from The Daily Show. You can enjoy it at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/14/the-daily-show-bids-farewell-to-turd-blossom/
Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror.
But leaving is too good for Rove. He was Bush's partner in the Iraq war, yet he (like other Bush aides, including, most recently, Dan Bartlett) are abandoning ship before the fight is done. Rove has argued that the Iraq war is essential for the survival of the United States (that is, for all of our families). So how can he walk away with the war not won?
In June 2006, Rove gave a speech to New Hampshire Republicans and blasted Democrats for advocating "cutting and running" in Iraq. He said of the Democrats, "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going...to be with you for the tough battles." But isn't Rove now doing the same on a personal scale? He is departing the White House when the going in Iraq is as tough as it ever was.
In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of Tom and Daisy, "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Rove is certainly more careful than Fitzgerald's characters--careful when it comes to politics and doing whatever is necessary to win. But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad.
Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest did so with little understanding and with insufficient planning, and they sold the war to the public with bad information and blatant misrepresentations. (Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group that devised the prewar messaging.) Rove deserves not reward but punishment. A fitting sentence would be for Rove to stay to the bitter end so he can sweep up the turds he is now leaving behind.
Of course, if Karl hits the road as planned, we can always treasure his send-off from The Daily Show. You can enjoy it at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/14/the-daily-show-bids-farewell-to-turd-blossom/
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Earth to Earthlings: Your Birthing Disorder Must End
It’s time to reiterate my post of April 3, 2007, “Global Birthing Fuels Global Warming,” but with new data and a more pointed thrust. Key points were:
1. For decades, population growth has continuously outpaced our technological ability to produce and deliver a long list of basic necessities to every person on earth.
2. Obvious remedy: “reduce the pace of adding bodies to the planet until we learn how sustain the lives of the ones we already have.”
3. Chief obstacle: refusing to factor climate change into its opposition to “artificial contraception,” the Catholic Church today is the primary global proponent of overpopulation, thereby giving population growth mistaken priority over planetary survival.
A recent column by Neal Peirce of the Washington Post and the Center for Local and State Solutions raises the question: is any growth in world population compatible with halting catastrophic climate change?
Peirce’s column is available at http://www.napawash.org/resources/peirce/peirce_7_15_07.html
Peirce was reporting on a global Urban Summit, assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation at the start of July in Bellagio, Italy. He highlighted presentations by Joel Cohen, head of the Laboratory of Populations at Rockefeller and Columbia Universities, and by Stephen Shepherd and colleagues at Williams College.
Cohen’s analysis:
World population in 1950: 2.2 billion, spread mostly across rural areas.
World population today: 6.6 billion, half crowded into cities characterized increasingly by slums, endangered water and sewer systems, local misery and potential pandemics.
World population by 2050 at present birthrates: 11.7 billion.
Even if we reduced birthrates and added only 2.5 billion people by 2050: the world will have to build one city of 1 million every week for the next 43 years.
Does anyone imagine that is remotely possible?
Novel techniques used by Sheppard and his colleagues yielded even more dire conclusions about specific cities. Comparing Landsat satellite images of 120 world cities taken in 1990 and 2000, and matching the images with census data from each city, they were able to pinpoint a very troubling pattern of growth.
The most significant pattern is not the increase of slum-dwellers in the city centers, but the exponentially greater relentless expansion of urban peripheries. Comparing “infill” of the space inside existing cities with “outspill” that expanded the cities’ geographic areas, they found seven times more outspill.
For example, just to keep pace with current rates, Sao Paolo, Brazil, would have to add 7.5 square miles of new development every year. Shanghai would have to add twice as much.
Debate about whether public policy should prefer infill or outspill has been going on in major U. S. cities for decades. Sheppard’s analysis suggests, however, that no matter how much we make it a priority to improve the quality of life in city centers, global population pressures will keep pushing cities to enlarge their limits exponentially faster.
It is painfully obvious that technology is nowhere near an ability to handle the additional global warming that will result if we attempt to provide food, water, sewers, waste disposal, electricity, air conditioning, transportation, flood control etc. to such rapidly expanding cities. The Minnesota bridge collapse left no doubt: even the richest country on earth cannot keep up with the infrastructure maintenance and repair required to sustain the cities it already has. There is no way we can bite off more.
Overpopulation contributes negatively to global warming more directly and immediately than any other human activity. Until technology catches up enough to provide basic necessities without making global warming worse, the burden is on those who favor population growth to show how any increase in global population can be justified—scientifically, politically or morally.
According to Genesis 1:28 (Jerusalem Bible translation), God’s injunction to humanity’s first parents was “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth…” Measured by global warming and the very direct ways that population growth worsens it, the earth today is beyond the number of humans it can accommodate. We must ask ourselves seriously if the humanity can survive unless we begin taking steps to put the global population on hold.
It’s news to no one that there are acts of sexual coupling that are not open to the reproduction of children—and that those which biologically can produce offspring are still subject to responsible human control. In light of global warming, insisting that there is some divine or “natural law” mandate that every sexual act must be open to the creation of new life is utter nonsense. Even the Catholic Church has recognized that human sexuality has other ends. At this point in the evolution of our planet, those other ends need to be given higher priority—and be valued more highly—than having offspring.
Perhaps the nations of the world need to consider if the Chinese were not onto something when they provided disincentives to having large families. The Chinese policy was too draconian in content and execution. But already with the largest national population in the world, they were first to recognize what is becoming more obvious globally: there are finite limits to a population size that technology and the planet can sustain.
If nothing else, nations might want to ask if using tax laws to encourage more children is any longer a defendable idea. At the very least, no concrete decision to increase global population should ever be applauded as fashionable, patriotic, ecologically sound or even preserving the human race. At this point in history, population growth accomplishes nothing positive.
The planet is telling us that our natural instinct to perpetuate our families has been perverted into a birthing disorder. Either we eliminate it, or it will eliminate us.
1. For decades, population growth has continuously outpaced our technological ability to produce and deliver a long list of basic necessities to every person on earth.
2. Obvious remedy: “reduce the pace of adding bodies to the planet until we learn how sustain the lives of the ones we already have.”
3. Chief obstacle: refusing to factor climate change into its opposition to “artificial contraception,” the Catholic Church today is the primary global proponent of overpopulation, thereby giving population growth mistaken priority over planetary survival.
A recent column by Neal Peirce of the Washington Post and the Center for Local and State Solutions raises the question: is any growth in world population compatible with halting catastrophic climate change?
Peirce’s column is available at http://www.napawash.org/resources/peirce/peirce_7_15_07.html
Peirce was reporting on a global Urban Summit, assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation at the start of July in Bellagio, Italy. He highlighted presentations by Joel Cohen, head of the Laboratory of Populations at Rockefeller and Columbia Universities, and by Stephen Shepherd and colleagues at Williams College.
Cohen’s analysis:
World population in 1950: 2.2 billion, spread mostly across rural areas.
World population today: 6.6 billion, half crowded into cities characterized increasingly by slums, endangered water and sewer systems, local misery and potential pandemics.
World population by 2050 at present birthrates: 11.7 billion.
Even if we reduced birthrates and added only 2.5 billion people by 2050: the world will have to build one city of 1 million every week for the next 43 years.
Does anyone imagine that is remotely possible?
Novel techniques used by Sheppard and his colleagues yielded even more dire conclusions about specific cities. Comparing Landsat satellite images of 120 world cities taken in 1990 and 2000, and matching the images with census data from each city, they were able to pinpoint a very troubling pattern of growth.
The most significant pattern is not the increase of slum-dwellers in the city centers, but the exponentially greater relentless expansion of urban peripheries. Comparing “infill” of the space inside existing cities with “outspill” that expanded the cities’ geographic areas, they found seven times more outspill.
For example, just to keep pace with current rates, Sao Paolo, Brazil, would have to add 7.5 square miles of new development every year. Shanghai would have to add twice as much.
Debate about whether public policy should prefer infill or outspill has been going on in major U. S. cities for decades. Sheppard’s analysis suggests, however, that no matter how much we make it a priority to improve the quality of life in city centers, global population pressures will keep pushing cities to enlarge their limits exponentially faster.
It is painfully obvious that technology is nowhere near an ability to handle the additional global warming that will result if we attempt to provide food, water, sewers, waste disposal, electricity, air conditioning, transportation, flood control etc. to such rapidly expanding cities. The Minnesota bridge collapse left no doubt: even the richest country on earth cannot keep up with the infrastructure maintenance and repair required to sustain the cities it already has. There is no way we can bite off more.
Overpopulation contributes negatively to global warming more directly and immediately than any other human activity. Until technology catches up enough to provide basic necessities without making global warming worse, the burden is on those who favor population growth to show how any increase in global population can be justified—scientifically, politically or morally.
According to Genesis 1:28 (Jerusalem Bible translation), God’s injunction to humanity’s first parents was “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth…” Measured by global warming and the very direct ways that population growth worsens it, the earth today is beyond the number of humans it can accommodate. We must ask ourselves seriously if the humanity can survive unless we begin taking steps to put the global population on hold.
It’s news to no one that there are acts of sexual coupling that are not open to the reproduction of children—and that those which biologically can produce offspring are still subject to responsible human control. In light of global warming, insisting that there is some divine or “natural law” mandate that every sexual act must be open to the creation of new life is utter nonsense. Even the Catholic Church has recognized that human sexuality has other ends. At this point in the evolution of our planet, those other ends need to be given higher priority—and be valued more highly—than having offspring.
Perhaps the nations of the world need to consider if the Chinese were not onto something when they provided disincentives to having large families. The Chinese policy was too draconian in content and execution. But already with the largest national population in the world, they were first to recognize what is becoming more obvious globally: there are finite limits to a population size that technology and the planet can sustain.
If nothing else, nations might want to ask if using tax laws to encourage more children is any longer a defendable idea. At the very least, no concrete decision to increase global population should ever be applauded as fashionable, patriotic, ecologically sound or even preserving the human race. At this point in history, population growth accomplishes nothing positive.
The planet is telling us that our natural instinct to perpetuate our families has been perverted into a birthing disorder. Either we eliminate it, or it will eliminate us.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Bush Threatens to Undermine New Orleans--Again
WWL-TV in New Orleans reports that, once again, President Bush is back-sliding on his promise that the federal govrnment would ensure the city's recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Now, for reasons clear to no one, he threatens to veto a bill that would devote $4 billion to infrastructure improvements to reduce the threat of new flooding. The outrage of Louisiana officials--including David Vitter--is well justified. Perhaps Bush should publish a list of promises he has kept. It would be a very short one.
This article, originally from the Associated Press, is at http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl080207tpbushveto.d5887200.html
Louisiana officials angry over Bush veto threat
August 2, 2007
BATON ROUGE, La. - Louisiana officials reacted angrily to President Bush's threat to veto a $20 billion water projects bill unless lawmakers remove the billions added for new plants and new costs shifted onto the federal government.
The bill was passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives Wednesday night.
"I am stunned by the President's WRDA veto threat," Republican Senator David Vitter said. "And I have one basic response -- I will enthusiastically work to override his veto."
Vitter pointed out that levees buckled under the intense storm surge of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the bill contains the means to "update, improve, and streamline bureaucratic stonewalls within the Army Corps of Engineers."
Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she wholeheartedly agreed with Vitter's viewpoint.
Louisiana has waited seven years for the projects in the bill to help with coastal restoration and hurricane protection projects, Blanco said.
"With many coastal residents still rebuilding after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- still vulnerable to future storms, I fail to understand how President Bush can choose to abandon their protection," Blanco said. "I urge our Louisiana Delegation to stand together and fight for Louisiana's future. Mr. President, our people are still suffering, and this WRDA bill shows them there is hope for the future. I ask you, do not dash their hopes."
In addition to water projects throughout the country, the bill includes authorization for over $2 billion in projects for south Louisiana, including full authorization for the Morganza-to-the-Gulf hurricane and storm protection system, $1.9 billion for a comprehensive federal coastal restoration plan, closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and channel deepening at the Port of Iberia, Rep. Charlie Melancon pointed out.
"By saying no to Morganza, the President is ignoring the 120,000 Americans in Terrebonne and south Lafourche who currently have no defense against storms and are like sitting ducks in the path of the next killer hurricane," Melancon said. "By saying no to closing MRGO, the President is ignoring the people of St. Bernard and New Orleans who had their homes and communities destroyed in large part because of this hurricane superhighway. And by saying no to the almost $2 billion in coastal restoration projects this bill authorizes, the President is ignoring all of the people of south Louisiana, and the vital role they play supplying this country with energy, seafood, and other resources."
This article, originally from the Associated Press, is at http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl080207tpbushveto.d5887200.html
Louisiana officials angry over Bush veto threat
August 2, 2007
BATON ROUGE, La. - Louisiana officials reacted angrily to President Bush's threat to veto a $20 billion water projects bill unless lawmakers remove the billions added for new plants and new costs shifted onto the federal government.
The bill was passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives Wednesday night.
"I am stunned by the President's WRDA veto threat," Republican Senator David Vitter said. "And I have one basic response -- I will enthusiastically work to override his veto."
Vitter pointed out that levees buckled under the intense storm surge of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the bill contains the means to "update, improve, and streamline bureaucratic stonewalls within the Army Corps of Engineers."
Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she wholeheartedly agreed with Vitter's viewpoint.
Louisiana has waited seven years for the projects in the bill to help with coastal restoration and hurricane protection projects, Blanco said.
"With many coastal residents still rebuilding after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- still vulnerable to future storms, I fail to understand how President Bush can choose to abandon their protection," Blanco said. "I urge our Louisiana Delegation to stand together and fight for Louisiana's future. Mr. President, our people are still suffering, and this WRDA bill shows them there is hope for the future. I ask you, do not dash their hopes."
In addition to water projects throughout the country, the bill includes authorization for over $2 billion in projects for south Louisiana, including full authorization for the Morganza-to-the-Gulf hurricane and storm protection system, $1.9 billion for a comprehensive federal coastal restoration plan, closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and channel deepening at the Port of Iberia, Rep. Charlie Melancon pointed out.
"By saying no to Morganza, the President is ignoring the 120,000 Americans in Terrebonne and south Lafourche who currently have no defense against storms and are like sitting ducks in the path of the next killer hurricane," Melancon said. "By saying no to closing MRGO, the President is ignoring the people of St. Bernard and New Orleans who had their homes and communities destroyed in large part because of this hurricane superhighway. And by saying no to the almost $2 billion in coastal restoration projects this bill authorizes, the President is ignoring all of the people of south Louisiana, and the vital role they play supplying this country with energy, seafood, and other resources."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
