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
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."
Geographic anomalies
Tijuana, Mexico is farther north than Savannah, Georgia.
New York City is farther south than Barcelona, Spain and Rome, Italy.
Toronto, Canada is farther south than Milan, Italy.
Both Cuzco, Peru and Santiago, Chile are farther east than New York City
Rio de Janeiro's and Buenos Aires's time zone is only two hours west of London's (in the winter, in summer the time zones are 4 hours apart).
In Panama, the Atlantic is north of the Pacific. The Panama Canal runs south-east from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Halifax, Canada has the same time zone as Santiago, Chile (in winter).
In New York City, Central Park is farther east than Brooklyn Heights (Brooklyners feel east of Manhattan).
Communism as a failed diet which blames the dieter.
Communism resembles the symptoms of unsuccessful diet programs. It has been tried by many countries: Russia (and its satellite states), China, Vietnam, Cuba, and others. In each case there were initial successes which addressed the failings of previous systems, but soon an inner corruption grew, which ultimately contradicted the initial ideals. Advocates for communism often claim that it was never properly applied or taken over by opportunists or that people weren't "ready" (see: the new man). In some ways this pattern is like a diet in which the dieter is blamed for not sticking to the program.
Imagine a diet which demands the dieter eat very little and exercise a lot for as long as necessary. This is, in fact, a good diet if you stick to it. But the vast majority of people won't and of those who will, many will relapse quickly. The proponent of the diet could argue that the problem lies with the dieters, however, the test of a good diet isn't whether it would work IF people apply it correctly, but whether people ACTUALLY apply it. Statistics matter here. Does it work en masse?
Communism isn't a system that most people are willing or able to stick to. Blaming human lack of discipline or corrupt individuals misses the point. An alternative to capitalism in present form, well worth working towards, has to address its own long term practical functionality, not just its idealistic intention in opposition to existing problems. It has to be a system that improves and corrects itself organically, because of, not in spite of human nature.
In the meantime we've tried modified versions of socialism, or its more reasonable cousin, social democracy, in the West, including in the Americas. They work amazingly well. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have SOME systems that actually work, imperfectly of course, but close to the level of what was only a dream 150 years ago, when aristocracy, slavery, indenture, child labor were still the norm. Neither the self-defined socialists are happy about the present conditions, nor its vocal opponents ( they have the confusion between communism and social democracy defined as a menace to take advantage of for just about any issue), but in practice, socialism has made the world somewhat better, let's admit that.
In the meantime we've tried modified versions of socialism, or its more reasonable cousin, social democracy, in the West, including in the Americas. They work amazingly well. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have SOME systems that actually work, imperfectly of course, but close to the level of what was only a dream 150 years ago, when aristocracy, slavery, indenture, child labor were still the norm. Neither the self-defined socialists are happy about the present conditions, nor its vocal opponents ( they have the confusion between communism and social democracy defined as a menace to take advantage of for just about any issue), but in practice, socialism has made the world somewhat better, let's admit that.
(Note: Capitalism, at least in its more cruel adaptations, also blames individuals instead of the system for its failings. Just think of the accusations re: "personal responsibility," "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps," "relying on government handouts," whenever a larger number of people fall between the cracks. When large scale corruption occurs, such as the savings and loan scandal or the recent banking meltdown, we tend to accuse particular individuals, organizations, or industries, instead of the general system that not only allowed it but invited it.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)