European and American population scales in relation to economic diversity
I wonder if there is a connection between the fact that Europe has countries with more similar population sizes and more equitable distribution of wealth within and between countries (than in the New World). In the Americas, there's "America," powerful and confident enough to call itself by the name of both continents, and there's all the others with far fewer population sizes, and much weaker economies. Within these countries, as well, there's more disparity of wealth. Is the greater economic equality of Europe contributing to a psychological acceptance of or demand for equality? Has the inequality between the Americas normalized internal inequalities? Has the exceptional wealth of the US simply attracted more people, contributing to its large population size, independently of internal politics? Are all the American economies based on resources and immigration first and foremost, and long-term economics second?
Has anybody noticed that the word "equality" has almost vanished from public discourse? It's more taboo than the word "liberal".
Has anybody noticed that the word "equality" has almost vanished from public discourse? It's more taboo than the word "liberal".
God, guns, and gold
A few decades ago it first occurred to me that American conservatism can be boiled down to an obsession with god, guns, and money (or to complete the alliteration, god, guns, and gold). When it came to joining church and state as in "prayer in schools," for example, they were for it. When it came to enlarging the military budget or "using force," or the death penalty, or anything having to do with the satisfaction of death, they were for it. And when it came to any issue where profits were in conflict with people or the environment, they usually sided with profits.
What I didn't realize is that many conservatives are proud to declare this obsession, which implies a different, curtailed usage of certain words and symbols, (or a profound cynicism maybe.). If you grew up with the combination of religion and guns in the home and with making a living, then "god, guns, and money" seems like a good representation of an honest, well-intentioned, and totally ethical philosphy. But these words have other meanings in different contexts. My main question is whether conservatives are aware that these words have additional meanings to other people in their own country and on the planet. Do they know what they are communicating to others? Do they have any empathy regarding their terminology?
from http://www.patriotdepot.com/ggag.aspx
Let's break it down:
God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.
Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?
Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.
In short, the three words could easily be misread as intolerance, violence, and greed.
An additional question: do the promoters of this verbal trinity know that it could come across as essentially anti-democratic? Granted, the words are intended to promote rights: the right to worship, the right to bear arms, and the right to pursue happiness. But, conservatism is usually very protective of existing institutions.
What I didn't realize is that many conservatives are proud to declare this obsession, which implies a different, curtailed usage of certain words and symbols, (or a profound cynicism maybe.). If you grew up with the combination of religion and guns in the home and with making a living, then "god, guns, and money" seems like a good representation of an honest, well-intentioned, and totally ethical philosphy. But these words have other meanings in different contexts. My main question is whether conservatives are aware that these words have additional meanings to other people in their own country and on the planet. Do they know what they are communicating to others? Do they have any empathy regarding their terminology?
from http://www.patriotdepot.com/ggag.aspx
Let's break it down:
God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.
Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?
Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.
In short, the three words could easily be misread as intolerance, violence, and greed.
An additional question: do the promoters of this verbal trinity know that it could come across as essentially anti-democratic? Granted, the words are intended to promote rights: the right to worship, the right to bear arms, and the right to pursue happiness. But, conservatism is usually very protective of existing institutions.
Politically we have three institutions here: the church (god), the military (guns), and the corporation (gold). All three are basically undemocratic. To be sure, many religious denominations have democratic traditions - protestantism is certainly more democratic than catholicism. But the language and the basic relation between humanity and the supernatural is that of the vertical aristocratic state: higher authority, to serve god, glory, lord, king, kingdom. The military, also, is explicitly hierarchical, with higher level members sporting their decorations like the royalty of old Europe. It doesn't use a system of one-soldier/one-vote to promote each person to the next level. And of course its culture is very much about obedience, service, loyalty, honor, uniformity, etc. The corporation, as well, is hierarchical. Yes, there are voting stockholders among "public" corporations, and some companies have worker input or some internal redress system, but generally corporations are run on a top-down model, with appointed positions, resembling the vatican and the defense department much more than the American democratic system. God, guns, and gold, although intended as a philosophy which values the individual over the government, politically prioritizes democracy's more undemocratic institutions. God, guns and gold, sounds to me like a call for everything that the ancestors of most current Americans escaped from.
Besides the assumed absence of god, guns, and gold's negative connotations, there is the greater problem of how the symbols contradict each other. If the first principle is god, which in the American context usually implies christianity, then the other principles need to be viewed according the bible. The new testament makes many diverse arguments, but its ultimate message, by shear repetition, is compassion for the less fortunate, i.e. peace and selflessness. Guns and gold, I would say, represent the exact opposite of peace and selflessness. In this internal contradiction of principles lies the ultimate creepiness of god, guns, and gold.
A philosphy that mixes religion with weaponry and currency seems not only hypocritical, but eager to repeat history. It reminds one of the horrors of history, in which religion, despite its official messages of peace and selflessness, has been used in violent campaigns for very materialistic goals — think crusades, feudal wars, imperialism, colonialism.
Besides the assumed absence of god, guns, and gold's negative connotations, there is the greater problem of how the symbols contradict each other. If the first principle is god, which in the American context usually implies christianity, then the other principles need to be viewed according the bible. The new testament makes many diverse arguments, but its ultimate message, by shear repetition, is compassion for the less fortunate, i.e. peace and selflessness. Guns and gold, I would say, represent the exact opposite of peace and selflessness. In this internal contradiction of principles lies the ultimate creepiness of god, guns, and gold.
A philosphy that mixes religion with weaponry and currency seems not only hypocritical, but eager to repeat history. It reminds one of the horrors of history, in which religion, despite its official messages of peace and selflessness, has been used in violent campaigns for very materialistic goals — think crusades, feudal wars, imperialism, colonialism.
In other words, do its promoters really want to call for a repeat of god using guns for gold?
The new world is different from the old world, differently.
The new world is not different from the old world in the sense that places differ from another, only within the framework of a general culture. Usually with distance comes difference, even within small countries. But, countries of the new world, especially in northern Anglo America, differ from the old world differently. They are not merely the same culture continued, with gradual differences appearing as a result of differences in geography and the accumulation of history. They are different in the way they have accumulated (by immigration, mostly), and by the violent overlays of very different theretofore barely related cultures (Europe, Africa, indigenous America). Although the old world is also a composted overlaying of empires and different peoples, the time frame was different longer. In the new world, mixtures of places and cultures happened so rapidly that a permanent rift between the different components has been maintained in memory, and the links to the old world have become abstracted, idealized.
There are parts of Latin America, for example, where cultural difference to Spain seems proportional to the distance involved (and the ocean in between, which in some ways can act as a preserver of culture rather than a diluter), where it feels as if Spain continues with a slight hick up, as if on the other side of a mountain range. But in most areas of the Anglo America, the umbilical cord of the "mother country" has been severed, it seems. Or, put differently, the newer region is not a continuation of the mother country, but an offspring of it, it is different in some fundamental way. The Anglo Americas relate to Europe (and other relatives) on the basis of rupture, not continuation, nostalgia as opposed to habit.
The Anglo American fascination with science fiction is more a documentation of this ruptured colonial/parental relationship, than a coded cold-war narrative. The US and Canada are more like extra-planetary outposts, than intra-planetary extensions. In Latin America, on the other hand, the dominance of catholic iconography (taking the place of the north's science fiction obsession) comes across as less a link to god than to Europe and the past. It seems, that in the northern hemisphere the distance of the ocean acts as an insulator, in the southern hemisphere it acts as a conductor.
There are parts of Latin America, for example, where cultural difference to Spain seems proportional to the distance involved (and the ocean in between, which in some ways can act as a preserver of culture rather than a diluter), where it feels as if Spain continues with a slight hick up, as if on the other side of a mountain range. But in most areas of the Anglo America, the umbilical cord of the "mother country" has been severed, it seems. Or, put differently, the newer region is not a continuation of the mother country, but an offspring of it, it is different in some fundamental way. The Anglo Americas relate to Europe (and other relatives) on the basis of rupture, not continuation, nostalgia as opposed to habit.
The Anglo American fascination with science fiction is more a documentation of this ruptured colonial/parental relationship, than a coded cold-war narrative. The US and Canada are more like extra-planetary outposts, than intra-planetary extensions. In Latin America, on the other hand, the dominance of catholic iconography (taking the place of the north's science fiction obsession) comes across as less a link to god than to Europe and the past. It seems, that in the northern hemisphere the distance of the ocean acts as an insulator, in the southern hemisphere it acts as a conductor.
Americans' knowledge of geography is inversely proportional to their influence on it.
Or, more precise but longer: The influence of the American economy and foreign policy on the world is inversely proportional to the American public's knowledge of the world.
No other country affects the rest of the world as much as the United States, through product and cultural exports, financial policies, and military interventions. Yet, the average American citizen, and especially younger Americans, are comparatively ill informed about world geography. There is a general world trend among youth away from geographic knowledge, but it seems particularly troublesome in the States. It is as if the US, in its educational institutions as well as through its media, presents itself as an island, as an independent universe, a world unto itself, with a few other nations somewhere else with far less significance. The cliché "America is the greatest country in the world" is often repeated, though rarely challenged or tested. "Greatest" implies not only "best" but also "most significant" and "largest."It is a personal opinion, presented as a fact.
I actually agree that the US is the greatest country in some ways— it has been for me, for my kind of needs and interests and emotions. There are many countries that I love, but none of them have such a broad range of aspects to appreciate. I would never claim American greatness as a general fact, as if the word "greatest" could ever be a purely factual statement. I think it would surprise many Americans that the US is not the greatest in these areas:
The US is not:
The most populous (China)
The largest (Russia)
The country with the highest standard of living (Norway)
The wealthiest per capita (Liechtenstein)
The country with the greatest upward mobility, a.k.a "opportunity" (Canada and all nordic European states have higher upward mobility).
This list could go on, and I'll spare you the "best" and "worst" lists where the US is on top. The point is that certain popular assumptions which primitively claim the US as greatest are ill informed. Feeling is not the same as fact. Belief is not the same as truth.
However, considering its size (though not the largest), its large population (though not the most populous), the US is remarkably well off and educated and well-run and democratic and peaceful (internally at least, notwithstanding the crime rate, police brutality, gun paranoia). So, I think this is where the US is truly "great." Countries of similar population size and land mass tend to be much more chaotic and less democratic, mainly because of the difficulty of management, but also because of the absence of a smart democratic system.
But when it comes to the US influence on the world, it does seem suspicious that Americans are not well informed on geography and statistics. Is it intentional (keep the population insular and distracted, while we use them to serve our interests abroad militarily)? It seems that way, but I haven't found any proof it this. Whether this is planned or not, the US underfunds education and overfunds the military, and the effects are not surprising.
Or is it a function of the country itself being so large and diverse, with a kind of "world replication" contained within? I assume this is at least part of it. The US has within it aspects of Latin America (the southwest and south Florida), northern Europe (the northeast and the midwest), the tropics (the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades), the steppes of Asia (the midwest), the Alps (the rocky Mountains), the deserts of Africa and Spain (in the southwest). The US has Chinatowns and Little Italy's, Korea towns and Little Switzerlands. So, whatever it is that propels people to travel, can be found, in diluted or partial form, within the US, for less. And, the only two borders you can drive to are Mexico and Canada. In most other countries of the world, cars and trains get you to a much larger number of countries cheaply.
There are numerous, well intentioned efforts underway to improve knowledge of geography, so lets keep our fingers crossed.
Link from National Geographic/Roper poll re: geography knowledge:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html
No other country affects the rest of the world as much as the United States, through product and cultural exports, financial policies, and military interventions. Yet, the average American citizen, and especially younger Americans, are comparatively ill informed about world geography. There is a general world trend among youth away from geographic knowledge, but it seems particularly troublesome in the States. It is as if the US, in its educational institutions as well as through its media, presents itself as an island, as an independent universe, a world unto itself, with a few other nations somewhere else with far less significance. The cliché "America is the greatest country in the world" is often repeated, though rarely challenged or tested. "Greatest" implies not only "best" but also "most significant" and "largest."It is a personal opinion, presented as a fact.
I actually agree that the US is the greatest country in some ways— it has been for me, for my kind of needs and interests and emotions. There are many countries that I love, but none of them have such a broad range of aspects to appreciate. I would never claim American greatness as a general fact, as if the word "greatest" could ever be a purely factual statement. I think it would surprise many Americans that the US is not the greatest in these areas:
The US is not:
The most populous (China)
The largest (Russia)
The country with the highest standard of living (Norway)
The wealthiest per capita (Liechtenstein)
The country with the greatest upward mobility, a.k.a "opportunity" (Canada and all nordic European states have higher upward mobility).
This list could go on, and I'll spare you the "best" and "worst" lists where the US is on top. The point is that certain popular assumptions which primitively claim the US as greatest are ill informed. Feeling is not the same as fact. Belief is not the same as truth.
However, considering its size (though not the largest), its large population (though not the most populous), the US is remarkably well off and educated and well-run and democratic and peaceful (internally at least, notwithstanding the crime rate, police brutality, gun paranoia). So, I think this is where the US is truly "great." Countries of similar population size and land mass tend to be much more chaotic and less democratic, mainly because of the difficulty of management, but also because of the absence of a smart democratic system.
But when it comes to the US influence on the world, it does seem suspicious that Americans are not well informed on geography and statistics. Is it intentional (keep the population insular and distracted, while we use them to serve our interests abroad militarily)? It seems that way, but I haven't found any proof it this. Whether this is planned or not, the US underfunds education and overfunds the military, and the effects are not surprising.
Or is it a function of the country itself being so large and diverse, with a kind of "world replication" contained within? I assume this is at least part of it. The US has within it aspects of Latin America (the southwest and south Florida), northern Europe (the northeast and the midwest), the tropics (the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades), the steppes of Asia (the midwest), the Alps (the rocky Mountains), the deserts of Africa and Spain (in the southwest). The US has Chinatowns and Little Italy's, Korea towns and Little Switzerlands. So, whatever it is that propels people to travel, can be found, in diluted or partial form, within the US, for less. And, the only two borders you can drive to are Mexico and Canada. In most other countries of the world, cars and trains get you to a much larger number of countries cheaply.
There are numerous, well intentioned efforts underway to improve knowledge of geography, so lets keep our fingers crossed.
Link from National Geographic/Roper poll re: geography knowledge:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html
Cars create an environment which demands cars.
Cars create an environment in which the pedestrian seems lost, inefficient, backwards, derelict. In the US, pedestrians on the side of the road seem in need of transportation. Just as a person who sleeps outside is homeless, a person who walks outside is "carless." In most of the rest of the world, where public spaces are older and thus planned without cars in mind, the car and pedestrian environments often have mixed without negating the role of the pedestrian. There, cars still seem to be the intruders, not the rulers. In North America, cars have defined place for over a century, and have almost completely edged out and demoralized pedestrian culture.
The short term reaction to pedestrian anxiety is to join the culture and use a car. The long term solution does not appear on the horizon. Perhaps overpopulation (resulting in density) or exploding gas prices will ameliorate this strange condition.
The short term reaction to pedestrian anxiety is to join the culture and use a car. The long term solution does not appear on the horizon. Perhaps overpopulation (resulting in density) or exploding gas prices will ameliorate this strange condition.
The power of lying honestly.
Do inspiring schemers like the pope, Hitler, L. Ron Hubbard, George Bush 1&2, Limbaugh, know they are duping people? Or do they believe their own lies?
I am convinced they believe, at least to some extent, their own nonsense. They have artfully managed to close the circle of manipulation and guilt. To manipulate others you have to lie (or let's say that's the easier way to do it); to not feel guilt about lying, you have to lie to yourself. If the lies you tell others are consistent with those you tell yourself, you become free from the truth, and gain a formidable advantage.
I am convinced they believe, at least to some extent, their own nonsense. They have artfully managed to close the circle of manipulation and guilt. To manipulate others you have to lie (or let's say that's the easier way to do it); to not feel guilt about lying, you have to lie to yourself. If the lies you tell others are consistent with those you tell yourself, you become free from the truth, and gain a formidable advantage.
The one hundred doctors analogy (re: global warming)
Imagine your doctor diagnoses you with lung cancer. You might want to get a second and third opinion, just in case.
What if you got a hundred opinions from doctors specializing in cancer and ninety-seven of them agree? They don't agree on precisely how much longer you have to live or the exact treatment, but they agree on the diagnosis.
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.
Would this propel you to act?
When it comes to global warming and the proposal that it's man-made, ninety-seven percent of those that are most expert on that subject — climatologists — agree. (See link and quotes below). Their agreement is not completely unanimous, but close.
Wouldn't this propel people to act?
If ninety-seven percent (or eighty, or seventy ...) of your doctors agreed regarding your lung cancer, would you take that seriously, or would you suspect a hoax? Would you instead listen to friends of yours who feel uncomfortable with the diagnosis? Would you choose to listen to experts working for the tobacco industry?
It's been repeated often that the denial of the obvious is caused by people's unwillingness to change their comfortable ways, plus specific conflicts of interest. I'm not sure that really explains it. Is it a problem with the lack of dissemination and repetition of information? Or is it the inability to connect world health with personal health? Maybe it's the "gatekeeper syndrome" which is what I call the phenomenon of hearing uncomfortable news and then a respected person tells you not to worry about it.
From news.mongabay.com
A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences who conducted the survey late last year with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)