A new Earth Policy Institute report concludes that China now consumes more raw materials than the United States, at least as far as meat , steel, coal, and grain are concerned. The US still dominates oil consumption, for the time being. Although consumer consumption overall is still lower in China than the US, the number of consumer computers sold in China is doubling every 24 months (that's almost Moore's law in effect!) and some goods such as TVs, cell phones, and refrigerators, are bought by more Chinese than Americans. This affirms the dual trend of China serving as the manufacturing center for the rest of the world and using this position to develop the consumer class of its own society. China's economy expanded by half a point shy of 10% last year. Not bad for a bunch of commies.
The report declares that China is no longer a developing country but is best considered an emerging economic superpower.
Of course, there is quite a bit of trouble in paradise. It is estimated that 3/4 of city water is unfit for drinking and 2/3 of Chinese cities exist in a haze of air pollution. China is consuming timber at a voracious rate, contributing to epidemic deforestation throughout Asia.
Guess the freedom to set policies however you want, independent of your population's demands and desires, isn't any better at avoiding running one's society into the ground than forking it over to the free market. Fucking commies.
The baton of supremacy and the title of the most powerful and influential has been passed from nation to nation, East to West, since the beginning of civilization, and it is being passed on to Asia now. Unfortunately, the current US government will undoubtedly see this as a threat and are likely to respond with the big guns. Taiwan's relationship with the motherland and its status as the only Democracy borne from and in defiance of a Communist takeover are just another vector in the dynamic that is likely to bring us on a collision course with China.
War with China seems so unlikely today that I'll be scoffed at for predicting it. But in 20, 30, 40 years from now when India, China, and the United States are each consuming more resources than the Earth will be able to produce, something is going to have to give. Be it water, oil, or something else, there are likely to be pretty nasty resource wars in the future.
Just more reasons why we need to develop cheap renewable energy sources. Not sure what to do about materials for all the shit we want to buy though.
Can government pose a threat to a society's way of life? This is a rhetorical question and it is hopefully obvious to everyone reading that yes, government can pose a threat to a society's way of life. Off the top of my head, the three biggest threats are other governments, one's own government, and malcontents like terrorists, subversives, and the like. If one is concerned about the vibrancy of their way of life, they ought to pay attention to the threats posed by these risks and implement security measures appropriate to the risks.
Appropriate to the risks. Those four words are a qualifier that I wrote about the notion of introducing security measures against risks. Right now, as in many times in the past, security of our way of life dominates much of the population's discourse and consideration. But we have strayed into a most threatening arena where the notion of security is unchallenged and unqualified, intentionally so. Many attempts to introduce qualifiers into the discourse of security are rejected outright, even to the point of accusing those who suggest we rethink security as being anti-security or even pro-terrorist!
Security is not a switch that is either on or off. We are not either "secure" or "not secure." It just doesn't work that way. Security, true security and not just window dressing facades that look like security, entails rejecting those ideas that sound or look good but in reality don't really make a difference and choosing those systems that are effective and efficient, regardless of how glamorous they are. This is easy to say, perhaps even easy to agree with, but when it comes time to agree that putting anti-missile defense systems on commercial aircraft is a waste of money or that terrorist watch list-based databases for crossing-checking flyer lists against are bad ideas, let's see how many decision makers have the integrity to do so.
In an infinitely rich economy, such choices (well, the database once is always a bad one, for other reasons) wouldn't necessarily have to be made. But we have a finite amount of money to spend on security so we have to be efficient about it. Yes, Stinger missiles are a theoretical risk, but even in a worst case scenario, they would take down a plane with a couple hundred people in it. No one likes to make decisions with a calculus of human life, but we have to consider it in this way, at least partly. To input such a missile defense system would cost billions. Once we look at the risk of Stinger attacks closer, we realize that while it is a theoretical risk, the actual risks are much much lower. Comparatively, it is unlikely that we would be attacked in such a way when so many other options are available that offer greater likelihoods of success and higher casualties. The billions spent on such systems would be much better spent on other measures that protect against threats with higher probabilities of happening. (Don't believe me on this analysis? Check out what the RAND think tank says about it.)
We can't protect against every attack. This fact itself is the entire reason why anti-terrorist activities should only partly be focused on beefing up security, intel gathering, and interdiction of individuals. As long as there are people who want to attack us, attacks are possible. We need to continue working to build a world were these sorts of people are rarer. Perhaps it is futile or impossible, but it must be tried and tried again. I'm not talking about a "we are the world" utopia either. Just a world built on different principles or the consistent application of the sound principles that modern society is built on. It would not require a radically different way of thinking, just a re-organization of our priorities and a willingness to make adjustments.
But I'm veering totally off course from what I wanted to write about at the beginning, so allow me to just jump back to it. What I wanted to say here before my run-up ran away in other directions was that we mustn't forget that the government poses risks to our way of life, inherently. It is powerful and the ultimate arbiter of the formal structure (legally, at least) of our society and thus the risks are grave if the government should stray off course. We are entrusting our government now to make us safer from terrorists, but we are perhaps forgetting that the government itself can be a risk even greater than the terrorists pose. Terrorism really is not much of a threat at all. I'm not saying it is NO threat, just that it isn't a very big one, at least directly.
Terrorists, by definition are weak. They resort to the tactics they use because they do not have the power to engage in military, economic, or cultural warfare. They use the outrageous tactics they do because of the emotional impact of such tactics and the momentum such tactics can impart. I don't know what Osama's desires and intentions are, but I'm fairly certain that he entertained no illusions of killing all Americans or invading our country or waging a bombing campaign that would cause the US population to convert to Wahhabi Islam and cause the Constitution to dissolve. Rather, (again, this is just my conjecture, but I think it is reasonable) he probably hoped to set of a series of events that would cause great divisions throughout the modern world, hopefully drawing the United States into war in the Middle East and weakening the cohesive bonds of western civilization. Divide and conquer. He perhaps hoped to create a climate of fear and uncertainty in the US that would drive the government to enact policies that divide society. OBL doesn't have the power to destroy America; but he has the power (as a potential) to incite us to destroy it for him. It is our obligation to be aware of this and subvert these efforts, even though it means we need to oppose the current policies and good-intentions of the Bush presidency.
Our government has been, is, and will continue to make policies and decisions that are not good for the country, in spite of being touted as such. I have no doubts about the positive intentions of the President and his advisors. But they are part of the government and as such not suitable for analyzing oversteps on their parts. It is their job to push the boundaries and it is our job as citizens to keep them in line. George Bush likes to tout his idea of an "ownership society" with regard to Social Security. I suggest that we realize we currently and always have had such an ownership society because we are the stockholders in our government.
The government is there for us, not the other way around. They are doing their best, but they are blinded to several realities as a result of their positions. They are unable to assess security measures in our current climate because they fear being soft on terrorism or are afraid that the effective measures aren't visible enough or are afraid to admit that some of the measures they've put in place are just window dressing or are unwilling to give up some of the powers that they've taken, even though those powers are antithetical to the role of government in the United States of America we all hold so dear.
It is up to us to change this climate. We need to stop accepting such window dressing. We need to reject the government demands for more power in the name of security. We need to be talking to each other about this. We need to be writing letters to the editors and to our congressmen (real letters in these cases, not email). I want to be safe, but I want to be free even more.
Another way to think of this is to consider that we have to just choose whether we'd rather live free or live under security. Me, I'd rather live free, even if that means it is easier for someone to attack us. For if we subject ourselves to a security state that insulates us from attacks yet in the process deprives us of our freedoms, we hand the terrorists the gold medal with garnish. That's a perverse rationale generated from the same bin as the "burn the village to save it" mantra. If we do not insist on protections of freedoms that are vital to the very causes and way of life we claim to be defending, we will only succeed in destroying ourselves before the bad guys do. "You can't fire me, I quit!" works in a labor economy but it translates into "You can't destroy us, that's OUR job!" in the realm of security run amok. If we do not preserve with every once of our being those freedoms, ideals, and forms of governance (with all its checks on authority and balances and transparency) that make our nations worthy of believing in and fighting for, even if we protect ourselves from future attack, we no longer are protecting what we started to protect. We risk smothering ourselves as we hanging on tighter.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to live freer than more secure. This does not mean that one chooses to be attacked. It simply means that we recognize that terrorists are a threat both internally and externally. Externally as bombers and internally as demonized forces that are used to move society in directions that it doesn't have to be or shouldn't be moved in. I'm not saying that no security improvements should be more nor am I suggesting that we stop trying to capture those who seek to harm us. I am suggesting that we not do them any favors and stop harming ourselves.
We also need to recognize that terrorism just isn't that big of a threat. Abolishing our freedoms affects every single one of us every single day for the rest our lives and the lives of those yet to be born. Bloated government with too much power is a risk for every single citizen and brings us one step close to living in a society very very very similar to those societies we were opposed to during the Cold War. Maintaining our freedoms with securing the obvious weaknesses and strengthening our efforts to stop both the current crop of terrorists as well as conditions that give rise to future terrorists will protect us from almost all attacks. And even if we are attacked again and even if such attacks could have been prevented by rescinding our cultural freedoms, we could proudly and defiantly claim that even if the terrorists can still find ways to attack us from time to time, they cannot destroy that which makes us great. But if we demolish the freedoms that give us pride in our country and submit to a government with absolute power, no transparency, and little accountability, even if we are never attacked again, we have lost the war against the terrorists.
The government is not our enemy. But without careful checks coming from the population, it can overstep and cause problems. A gentle giant, powerful beyond belief and fully capable of doing what we need, but also capable of unintentionally stepping on its masters. Once control is ceded, it is very very difficult to get it back. It is our civic responsibility, passed down over hundreds of years from the Founding Fathers, to resist the temptation to blindly follow the advice of the government. They do not know best. We must fight and protect ourselves against all enemies, both the obvious and the unintentional.
I found out the other day that a guy I've know for three years isn't who I had always assumed he was. I've known him only through our online interactions, primarily IRC chat with some forum interaction. He is a computer programmer by profession and I even use one of his applications. I had always assumed, without really analyzing it, that he was younger than me, of medium build, and white. Turns out he is younger than me, but he's a big black guy. This has really surprised me, as over the years my conception of him had matured to the point of being fairly reliable, in my own mind.
When I first meet people online, I don't really form many hard conclusions about what they look like. I might fill in a few general outlines, say breasts and hips for females, perhaps with longish hair, maybe some age relevant details, but I'm not surprised to find out that someone didn't look like the image I had in my mind if and when I see a picture. They might be fatter or skinnier, have glasses, even be black, red, brown, or yellow, and it doesn't surprise me. I keep my expectations loose and fluid.
But with this recent event, my conception of this guy was pretty well established in my head. It is bothering me because I can't figure out if I've committed some liberal politically-correct crime or if we stumbled into a positive space founded on a distinct lack of importance placed on racial and ethnic identity. I figure I've either made a mistake in uncritically assuming that an online entity that programs computers and hangs out online all day and doesn't talk about their race is white or that detail of his personhood is such a trivial one (which is kind of the goal of a multi-ethnic society, no?) that it never entered our discussions. The only time I've seen a discussion that indicated any racial or ethnic differences was when he was recently talking about his hair-twists coming undone, which clued me in to the notion that he had a different hair style than I was expecting.
Of course, when I saw his picture, my first responses were denial ("that can't be him!") and guilt ("Shit, I've been assuming him to be white the whole time"). I can't escape dealing with at least one of these responses. Either I conclude that the channel is fucking with me and I shouldn't be gullible, or I recognize that I made an erroneous assumption about his identity.
It seems to me that making such a mistake about someone's identity in a blind environment isn't really something that I should feel bad about. Or is it? Is there something unjust or discriminatory in assuming that a programmer is white or that a black person wouldn't be doing what this guy is doing? Yet, i never assumed that, and had I been privy to such a detail early on in the relationship, it wouldn't have fazed me at all. It is only because my assumptions, which typically begin loose and flexible, had morphed over time into rather hard conclusions that I unconsciously had found confirming evidence for. If the initial assumptions are not challenged over a long enough period, their accuracy becomes more reliable. This is just common psychological functioning, I think.
I think it would be a greater error to exercise extreme skepticism and disbelieve that the picture I saw is real. The comments about his hair seemed wholly casual and legitimate and I see no evidence of deceit by the cohort of friends who hang out together online. The only reason to conclude that he is white but trying to fool me into thinking he is black is that it is the only way to protect my assumptions. It would be more disrespectful and discriminatory to refuse to believe this than to have made the error of assumption in the first place. He had never made mention of his race, and I filled in the blank eventually based on stereotypes and statistical probabilities. But was that wrong? If someone never mentions or gives clues as to their ethnic identity, is it morally, philosophically, or intellectually askew to assume that they are thus white (or part of the dominant ethnic group)? Are minorities expected to have to make it clear to avoid people conceiving of them as something other than they are? Is it important for us to constantly keep our conceptions of people open to adjustment until we get some evidence, be it political or religious ideas, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences, or tastes in music? Or if racial identity isn't a matter of importance to a person, is there no harm in making unintentional assumptions? If something is important to someone's identity, can we expect them to make it salient in interactions?
So with all of this whinging as a background, I'm lead to wonder what kind of assumptions minorities make in similar circumstances. I suspect that most everyone with any experience in online interactions probably refrains from making a lot of assumptions about the identity of others they meet until they get some confirming details. Obvious exceptions are if you are involved with a crowd or community that inherently has identifying characteristics, be it an AARP (assume everyone is old), Rainbow Coaltion (Everyone is gay, or wants to be), or goth (everyone is immature and suffering from the unraveling of the fabric of human society). But if you are in a community with non-identifying characteristics of membership, if someone fails to mention that they possess a particular characteristic over a 3 year period, do minorities assume they are straight, white, men or do they project a mirror image of themselves and assume the other is like them?