Omnivore's Dilemma - Introduction Notes

Introduction - National Eating Disorder

“Many people today seem perfectly content eating at the end of an industrial food chain, without a thought in the world; this book is probably not for them.”

In American culture, inherited cultural knowledge about eating has been replaced by confusion & anxiety.  This important activity now requires remarkable amount of expert help.  Lipophobia in 1970’s has morphed into Carbophobia in 2000’s, causing bread & pasta, a staple of dining tables, to be replaced with imperfect substitutes.  This was caused by media storm of diet books, studies, and magazine articles (including the formerly discredited Dr. Atkins).  Such a violent change in a culture’s eating habits, unseen in other countries in Europe & Asia, is the sign of a national eating disorder - other signs include dietary goals in the shape of a pyramid set by government legislation, endless stream of diet books (every January), confusion of dietary supplements for meals, obsession with fast food, and gross obesity.  Americans are dismayed at the fitness of other countries, despite what appears to be lavish consumption.  Others are amazed that Americans are so confused about what to eat.

Omnivore’s dilemma was first mentioned by Rousseau and Brillat-Savarin, addressing the boon and burden of being able to eat with greater freedom (and risk).  Some anthropologists believe our brains evolved in order to better address omnivore’s dilemma.  In addition to our senses, culture memory serves important function in distinction between good & bad foods - stores accumulated wisdom of countless human experiences.  Culture acts to avoid dilemma at the onset of every meal.  Part of American problem stems from plethora of choices available at local markets (Note - America is unique in this aspect; most cultures only have access to locally grown fruits & vegetables).  America also suffers from heterogenous culture.  Lack of steadying culture of food leaves us susceptible to some profiteers and marketers, who view omnivore’s dilemma as an opportunity.  It is in food industry’s interests to exacerbate our anxieties regarding diet, to better assuage us with new products.

Purpose of this book is to trace the origin of meals in order to discover the most fundamental relationships between species in nature, vis a vis eaters & eaten.  It focuses on three separate food chains that sustain us:  1) industrial, 2) organic, and 3) hunter-gatherer.  

Ecology also tells us that all life in on earth is a competition for energy, specifically solar energy (Note: Living Within Limits - Garrett Hardin).  Industrial revolution of food chain has changed fundamental rules of the game.  Reliance on sun has been replaced with reliance on petrol-fuels.  This has greatly increased the among of food energy available.  Abundance seems to have deepened the Dilemma, not render it obsolete.

The end result is the discovery of the Perfect Meal, not because of its taste, but because of the labor and thought-intensive process, enjoyed in the company of other foragers.  It provides the rare opportunity to eat in full consciousness of everything involved in the food we eat - it involves paying the full karmic price of a meal.  Industrial eating removes us from the relationship we have with nature’s other inhabitants - we often disregard not only the animal’s pain, but our pleasure.

The book will also illustrate the tension between nature and human industry.  Often, our prodigiousness comes into conflict with nature’s ways, particularly when we try to maximize efficiency (vast monocultures, fossil fuels, artificial animal farms, novel diets).

“But in the end this is a book about the pleasures of eating, the kinds of pleasure that are only deepened by knowing.”

Dying of Money - Complete Notes

I've found it too tedious to post individual notes separately.  I would have liked to embed the google doc into this blog, but Google engineers apparently still have some things to figure out (are u listening?)  Therefore, the complete notes can be found in the link below...

Dying of Money - Complete Notes

Dying of Money - Intro

“One must beware of being a creditor whenever the government is a huge debtor”

Over the next month, I will be putting up some notes on a $750 book...

Parsson's in Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations gives an historical account of the infamous hyperinflation saga of Germany's Weimar Republic.  In addition, he goes into depth about the history of inflation in our country.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapter 4

The (truly) revolutionary leader is someone who believes that by living in communion with each other, we liberate each other.  He must believe that there is nothing more important than to live and work with the oppressed, with the 'rejects of life', with the 'wretched of the earth'...

Conquest vs Cooperation... shall we subject others to our will (whether forcefully or paternalistically), or shall we work together with others in order to better understand the world around us?

Fragmentation vs Unity... oppressors shift the focus to focalized views of problems, rather than dimensions of a disfunction on a grande scale... ie today's hot-topics of immigration, abortion, stem-cell research, etc

Manipulation vs Organization... oppressors manipulate the oppressed to inoculate individuals with the bourgeois appetite for personal success...

Cultural invasion vs cultural synthesis... instead of teaching people to critically view their surroundings, instead we invade their cultures and alienate them from the spirit of their own cultures... then we teach them to dress like us, walk like us, and talk like us...

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapter 3

Freire sets out several criterion essential to a dialogical eduction:

1. Love - for the world... for the people... we need to possess courage, not fear, and a commitment to others, that is love... if we do not love the world, life, or people, we cannot enter into dialogue with them
2. Humility - we cannot dialogue if we project ignorance onto others, and never perceive our own... self-sufficiency is incompatible with dialogue... there are neither utter ignoramuses nor perfect sages, only people attempting together to learn more than they now know
3. Faith - in people's power to make/remake... we must believe in others, that they are capable of the responsibility of freedom & liberation
4. Hope - if dialoguers expect nothing of their efforts, then it will be empty and sterile, beaureaucractic and tedious
5. Critical thinking - which discerns an indivisible solidarity b/w the world and the people... which perceives reality as process, rather than static entity

Pedagogy criticizes the traditional 'banking' model of education for teaching students what the teacher wants to, or already knows, rather than what the students need to know.  This process removes the need for active participation of students, in any form other than some derivative of memorization.  To deepen critical understanding, we must help students develop an active attitude, so that they become the subjects of the education, rather than depository objects.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapter 2

Freire cautions against the 'banking' model of education, in which students become depositories, where teachers go to deposit their 'facts'.  This flawed method only serves to perpetuate the existing status quo, by telling the students how they should think.  Conveniently, it is often the oppressors which determine the truths to be deposited, thereby securing their power base.  In the banking model, an educated person is passive, and better 'fit' for the world.

Instead, Freire believes that education should spur students to critically consider reality.  Real education should be liberating, by presenting problems, rather than spoon-feed 'solutions'.  The way to bridge the gap between banking and education is through communication and dialogue.  Teachers must be students, and students must be teachers... the education must flow both ways.  As teachers listen to the students, they can better understand them, and the dynamic truths in which they live.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapter 1

Oppressed

Paulo Freire sees society as trapped by a perpetual conflict between two groups: the oppressors (the have's) and the oppressed (the have not's).  The oppressed fear and hate the oppressors for exploiting them.  The oppressors hate the oppressed for the constant threat of revolution, which leads to increased exploitation/oppression.

The oppressors 'oppress, exploit, rape by virtue of their power'.  They abuse anything in a mad pursuit to possess everything - for them, 'money is the measure of all things, and profit the primary goal... what is worthwhile is to have more - always more - even at the cost of the oppressed having less or having nothing.  Any threat to the present situation is perceived by the oppressors as (ironically) oppressive...

formerly, they could eat, dress, wear shoes, be educated, travel, and hear Beethoven; while millions did not eat, had no clothes or shoes, neither studied nor traveled, much less listened to Beethoven.  Any restriction on this way of life, in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights... for the oppressors, human beings refer only to themselves; other people are 'things'

Education and generosity have been twisted in order to further perpetuate this game.  In education, the oppressors have a sense of being 'proprietors of history', in which they alone hold the truth to the past.  This 'absolute truth', once inoculated into the oppressed, will free them of their ignorance/poverty/uncleanness, and make them fit for society, as the oppressors see it - translation: continue the oppression.

Generosity too has been savagely distorted.  Freire believes that the oppressors practice what is a 'false generosity':

True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity.  False charity constrains the fearful and subdued, the 'rejects of life', to extend their trembling hands.

False generosity teaches free men to become dependent.  False generosity merely keeps people alive.  True generosity liberates men, and teaches them how to truly live.  Freire believes that if we (the have's) want to help the oppressed, we must be prepared to engage in dialogue, not monologue, with the people.  We can't teach them our (oppressive) version of history, but we have to teach them to think critically.  Solidarity is not keeping the oppressed dependent, but fighting at their side.

In the end, the oppressors are not free.  They are in fact slaves to their own power, unable to breakaway from the destructive cycle in which they find themselves trapped - everything they do reflects their imprisoned state.

Oppressed

Paradoxically, only the oppressors, once properly equipped, can break apart from the cycle, freeing (humanizing) themselves, as well as their oppressors.

However, in history, it is all too often that after a revolution, the oppressed simply replace the former-oppressors with former-oppressed.  Not knowing any other paradigm, they displace the despots only to replace them.  Hence, the oppressed don't desire to be free, but instead they feel an irresistible attraction to the oppressors and their way of life.  The oppressed have a fear of freedom.  But also, without any knowledge, or example, of an alternative to the current paradigm, they seek after only the 'better alternative', not the ultimate solution.

This system of violence, oppression, and exploitation is deeply flawed.  The oppressed must choose not to fight back with the same tools which created this system... the outcome would only be another traditional revolution, with perhaps some blood shed, a new flag, but much the same system.  Instead...

paradoxical though it may seem - precisely in the response of the oppressed to the violence of their oppressors that a gesture of love may be found... only the power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both (oppressor & oppressed)

Living Within Limits - Chapter 27

Recapitulation and a Look Ahead

Hardin makes a very good point at the end of the book about the danger of globalization.  The key issue is that 'if you have only one system, then if anything goes wrong, everything goes wrong.'  Today, as the world becomes more integrated, and dependent on each other (as well as the overall machine running smoothly), can we survive a potential breakdown in the system?

The idea of coevolution comes to mind again.  For example, my skills as an analyst evolved in conjunction of the society in which I live (up to 100 yrs ago, there were no need for analysts).  I rely upon society to provide my bread, and society thrives from the effort of the analyst tribe.  This is true now for 95% of the people in this globe.  As the system has grown, we have developed specializations.

If the system breaks down, would I survive?  What kind of survival skills does an analyst have in a climate of anarchy?

On the national level...

This is true, not only for individuals, but countries as well.  Is it better to have many sovereign nations carrying out their own experiments in human civilization, and population control?  Or should we become one big 'global village' by opening up our borders, and essentially living/dying by a single uniform population policy (live, and let live, and let immigrate).

Though somewhat controversial today, Hardin believed in this policy: 'Unity within each sovereignty; diversity among sovereignties'.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 26

Necessity of Immigration Control

Even with creative solutions to population control within the borders of a country, that is not enough.  Hardin argues that there needs to also be stringent restrictions on immigration, otherwise, the progress made through population control will be offset by an influx of the great multitude of masses, which more than offsets the delicate equilibrium.

Conceivably, this is what happened in China, when the one-child-policy was instituted.  City-dwellers were restricted in the number of children allowed, however rural farmers were not.  Today, there is a huge problem in China of numerous farmers migrating into the city to look for work.  At the same time, data suggests dubious results from the half-hearted population control measures undertaken by the Chinese government (half-hearted in planning, not dedication)...



Personally, I'm not sure...

My family immigrated here from other places.  In fact, most Americans were descended from immigrants (most people in the world are the descendants of immigrants, technically).  Rhetorically, I feel compelled to argue for continuing the open-border policy of the U.S. (not truly open border, but better than most other places).

On the other hand, rationally speaking, there are very real limits to an open-border immigration policy.  The criticisms pointed out by Hardin are very real, and nearly impossible to refute.  It makes the arguments on border laws even more complex.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 25

Population Control - Why?

As a reminder, the goal of population control is not for its own sake, but to improve (maintain) the prosperity of the living - evolutionarily speaking, to keep a successful species from becoming too successful - consuming itself to its own doom.  More specifically, we wish to replace nature's methods of population control (starvation and disease) with human ones (preferably not nuclear holocaust or biological apocalypse).

Individual Rights or Virtue of Community

Hardin states that it is difficult for us westerners to realize that what we extol as 'Universal Human Rights' are in actuality 'Western Human Rights', which happens to date only three centuries back to John Locke.  The individualism of western society, and the emphasis it places upon the rights of the individual make population control particularly difficult.

In China, 1-child policies were enforced by community groups.  The community groups worked together, through such traditional motivational techniques as shame and morality (items long since out of style here in the West), in order to coerce adherence to law, for the good of all.

Perhaps sometime in the future, China will exhort the West to adopt laws more focused on 'Universal Societal Rights' - and perhaps our own legal system may even one day focus more on greater good, rather than individual rights.

Finally, a good solution...

2.2 kids per couple is approximately the magic number in order to stabilize population growth.  The solution I particularly like was offered by Kenneth Boulding.  The solution is interesting, and important, enough that it will be posted separately.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 24

The Story of Penicillin and DDT

After penicillin was discovered in 1928, it was hailed as the wonder drug.  By the 1930's, it became apparent that its use provoked evolutionary changes in bacteria, eventually leading to penicillin-resistance.

DDT, after its discovery as an insecticide in 1939, was used with great success in combating Malaria, and mosquito-spread diseases.  It was later found that the use of DDT led to the prevalence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.  (DDT was also the environmental disaster which contributed to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring).

What's the point?  One of Darwin's key insights was the way temporarily successful traits selected for their own eventual failure.  Bactericides such as penicillin selected for progressively stronger mutations of infections; insecticides such as DDT selected for ever-more-resilient strains of mosquitoes.

Birth Control vs Population Control

In celebration of the 100 year anniversary of The Origin of Species, University of Chicago asked Darwin's grandson, physicist Charles Galton Darwin to make a speech.  He shocked the community (the shock now long since forgotten) that purely voluntary birth control will fail as a means of population control.

His reasoning was that, through voluntary birth control, a certain group of people, Homo contracipiens, would elect to exercise this new restraint to exploding population growth.  On the other hand, another group, Homo progenitivus, would be genetically predisposed to exercise high levels of geometric growth.  Over time, Homo contracipiens would be extinct, and Homo progenitivus would see to it that their children would be as the stars in the sky.

Counter Argument - Is it truly genetic (nature)?

What if the propensity to procreate like rabbits was not truly a genetically inherited trait?  This argument is hindered by the evidence in human animal husbandry.  Domesticated animals have long been selectively bred in order to create the 'desired behavior' - dogs which are obedient, dogs which are trackers, dogs which are shepherds... etc.

This type of circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that there's reason to believe that nature will 'select' for the behavior of Homo progenitivus, that is the more virile (and less rational) man.

Counter/Counter Argument - It is also learned (nurture)!

However, research has shown us that even if behavior has absolutely no genetic component, the same results would follow.  Factors such as upbringing, societal pressure, and education will have similar repercussions on voluntary birth control.  Research has shown that 'daughters of mothers who had more children than the norm for their generation have more children than the norm for their - the daughters' - generation'.  Look no further than Africa.

If you agree with the above, then let me present to you this question... when developed nations send aid to 3rd world countries, what are they more concerned with?

1) Giving the man a fish? (food)
2) Teaching the man to fish? (education)

A successful war on poverty must be waged through education, a long-term carrot.  It's the only way to win against an enemies as strong as Nature and Nurture.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 23

Commonized Costs - Privatized Profits

Known as the CC-PP game, Hardin points out the duplicity of society, where 'most men believe in laissez-faire for others, while seeking to escape it themselves'.  In truth, success more often comes to an ingenious man who 'fashions a bifurcation in the accounting system that channels the costs of his enterprise to society, while directing profits to himself.'  Asymetrical capitalism is not to be confused with the real thing.

Externalities (aka Pollution)

Unwanted effects imposed on the environment by industry.  Companies (individuals) are rarely punished or charged for damages, though they reap all benefits.  Even when they pay damages, it is almost always to human victims.  The true damage done (wildlife, ecosystem, etc.) are not accounted for.

Disaster Relief

Think Katrina.  Mammoth rescue projects were undertaken to rebuild the city of New Orleans, paid for courtesy the tax payer.  However, the ecological-economic rule that we are fighting against is this: the flood plain belongs to the river.  Thought it's cheaper to build houses on flood plans than rolling hills, there is the clear risk of flooding.  If home builders, or home owners, were to internalize the costs of repair/rebuild, they would NEVER have built these homes.  Instead, through twisted incentive systems and immense hubris, we continue to fight against the laws of ecology and economics, forever dooming ourselves to repeat our past mistakes.

Farm Subsidies (and other subsidies)

Prices of farm produce is manipulated through subsidies, resulting in higher profits for farmers and higher costs for customers (and taxpayers).  This system is further twisted by subsidies tobacco farmers, which elevates medical needs for smokers, which elevates medical costs for all, which leads us to the next, and biggest topic...

Lawyers Protect Individuals (Not Society)

Hardin believes that the reason medical costs in the U.S. have sky-rocketed is largely due to the legal system - our laws are simply too big a temptation for lawyers.  We have 20 times more lawyers, per capita, than Japan.  However, very few (if any) defend the rights of the general public (social good doesn't pay the mortgage).

Malpractice suits against doctors are common; settlements cost money (not to mention legal fees).  Malpractice insurance costs money.  Insurers insist doctors protect themselves against lawsuit by demanding excessive diagnostic tests... cost money.  The costs are paid for either by a) government, or b) employer - the bulk of costs are socialized.

Saving babies (Warning... Reader Discretion Advised)

'It is impossible to put a price tag on life... particularly the life of innocent newborn babies'.  With the system we have today, social medicine, we don't have to.  Premature babies of even drug-addicted mothers are given every possible resource to nurture.  However, premature babies are notoriously expensive to save, with costs of roughly $1,700 per day (back in late 1980's).

If parents were forced to pay for the cost of saving a child, would they then be more capable of putting a 'price' on the life of a innocent newborn?

Consider China...

Hardin brings up the example of China as a comparison.  First, in China, lawyers have no right to intrude into medical matters.  Second, medical costs for treating babies are borne (no pun intended) by parents.  Third, both Confucian and Marxist values places high-esteem on the well-being of the greater society.  These factors would lead to dramatically different outcomes for neonatal care.

Mortality vs Morbidity

There is also the consideration of mortality vs morbidity.  We abhor the idea of the death of a child.  Yet, we rarely talk about the suffering of this child.  There is probably reason to suspect that the child suffers greatly during the intensive care process.  Not only that, but most 'saved' preemies have medical challenges the rest of their lives, including defects in hearing, sight, intelligence, and cardiovascular systems (causing not only suffering, but further deterioration of the medical commons).

Opportunity Cost

And then, there is the never-mentioned issue of opportunity cost.  Instead of the money being spent on these difficult to tackle problems, what if they money was spent to treat lesser ailments?  Or perhaps education?  Opportunity costs are very real, and (cold as it sounds) return on investment is an important consideration.

If the parents in the previous example had other, healthy, children to consider/raise, how would that effect their decision?  Save the child at any cost?  Is that what you would do?

If a rural hospital in a county with a small tax base were required to do everything humanly possible for all the patients who might come to it, the end result would be bankruptcy, following which the hospital could do nothing for anyone, rich or poor.

Legislative Failure - Pork Barrels & Lawyers

Consider why social costs exist in a democracy.  Senator A wants to protect the farmers in his state, yet wants to vote against the farmers in other states.  Senator B and C are in similar situations.  Together, they agree to vote for each other's subsidies.  Poor senators D and E are outvoted.  Democracy at work, in all its glory.

What about the broken legal liabilities in the medical system.  Here is Hardin's explanation:

...the majority of state legislators are lawyers by training; lawyers constitute something of a tribe, and we should not be surprised to find that here, as in so many instances, the tribal loyalty is given preference over loyalty to the nation as a whole.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 22

Discriminating Altruism

Darwin postulated that the nonexistence of altruism amongst different species is one of the default positions of biology.  Hardin carries the argument even further.  Altruism does not even exist for members of the same species, or even the same family.  Take an example.

A parent sacrifices him/herself for a child.  Noble indeed.  However, this act of individual altruism is actually an act of genetic selfishness... via The Selfish Gene theory (Richard Dawkins).  Genes within the parent have passed on 'urges' which work to maintain the survival of the child (new gene carrier), even at the cost of their (old gene carrier) own lives.  For Hardin, this is just another example of the essential role that discrimination plays in altruism.

Praising Discrimination

Hardin argues that 'discrimination is a necessary part of every persisting altruistic behavior.  Why?  Because without discrimination the good effects of altruism would be commonized over the entire population.'  One alternative to discriminating altruism would be universal altruism - a noble intention indeed.  However, it is pointed out that 'the specific shortcoming of universalism is easy to identify: it promotes a pathology... namely the tragedy of the commons'.

What are we to do?  What about altruism?

To be honest, I'm not sure.  As a follower of Jesus, I still adhere to the belief that a major purpose of life is wholeheartedly serving others, without judgement (universal altruism).  At the same time, rationality cautions that such reckless servitude is folly, and altruism without discretion could be quite damaging (money to the beggar for more drugs).

To me, this is reminiscent of the ESS dilemma between the doves and hawks.  As a Christian, we should be as doves.  Yet, this world is a world of hawks.

Nowhere near a final, universal, conclusion, I have arrived at a locale minima in cognitive dissonance.  I think universal altruism should not be inscribed into law.  Instead, I will exercise discretion, though erring on the side of universal altruism, when serving.  I will hope that God gave us good will, in addition to free will.

Random Thoughts...

Money is a form of reciprocal altruism, aka 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine'.  In addition, the phrase 'Money is the root of all evil' is actually distorted from a biblical aphorism:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. (1 Timothy 6:10) 

Living Within Limits - Chapter 21

The Global Pillage

Hardin introduces the reader to the famous Tragedy of the Commons.  This idea was first suggested by William Forster Lloyd back in the 1800's.  It is partly explained by the classic owner-operator problem:

Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden; give him a nine year's lease of a garden and he will convert it into a garden. (Arthur Young)

Donkey's Head

This chapter also mentions the account of a famine in Sweden in 1772.  We who are quick to judge might have blamed the rich at the time for failing to come to the aid of the poor, including one woman who 'cut her child's throat, having had no food to give it, that it might not pine away in hunger and tears.'

However, Hardin points out that 'it would have done no good for the rich to donate money to a community chest because the food for a large population of needy people was simply not available for purchase.  In a world of genuine scarcity a rich minority can offer the too numerous indigent little but sympathy.

There was a great famine in Samaria, as (the Syrians) besieged it, until a donkey's head was sold for eighty shekels of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove's dung for five shekels of silver. (2 Kings 6:32)

Living Within Limits - Chapter 20

Carrying Capacity

Hardin mentions the possibility that as the focus of human society has shifted from rural agriculture to urban industry, our view of the environment has changed as well.  He compares two perceptions of Greece as an example:

Present-day Greece... is what you expect the earth to look like given a fair chance.  It is the subliminal threshold of innocence.  It stands, as it stood from birth ,naked and fully revealed. (Henry Miller, 1941)

In the earlier days, Attica yielded far more abundant produce.  In comparison of what then was, there are remaining only bones of the wasted body... in the primitive state of the country, its mountains were high hills covered with soil, and the plains were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains... Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea... (Critias, Plato 3rd Century BC)

What to do about Bambi?

Successful (sustainable) practitioners of animal husbandry know that overgrazing the soil leads to deterioration in the wealth and carrying capacity of a piece of land.

In nature, this balance has traditionally been enforced by predators.  However, human culture portrays predators as 'evil', rather than 'good' (in the sense that they maintain the natural balance).  Pop cultural artifacts, such as Bambi, have long worked to solicit goodwill on behalf of prey such as deer, on the grounds of 'sanctity of life'.

As has been previously suggested, to respect life but not death is to display poor wisdom.  The path of foolishness often leads to unpleasantness.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 19

Major Default Positions of Human Biology

1. Our Earth is the Total World for Most of the Human Species - though I'm a fan of science fiction, it is a difficult to refute this truth, and it is unlikely to change in the near future (if ever).  Space 'Hope Operas' which portend otherwise do a disservice to their fellow human beings.

2. Rewards Determine Behavior - the rewards of parenthood are subtle and imperfectly understood.  It may be rewarding to explore this in greater detail if we want to change our behavior.

3. We Can Never Do Merely One Thing (Hardin's Law) - also known as Law of Unintended Consequences.  Curiously, this is similar to the Butterfly Effect found in Chaos Theory.

4. There's No Away to Throw to - the sooner we begin teaching this to our children, the better

5. 'Guilty' as the Default Position of Choice - ancient Anglo-Saxon law set the default position of criminal law as 'innocent until proven guilty'.  While commendable, social laws should be governed by the opposite maxim.  We are beginning to make progress, but there is still much to undo.

6. The Impact Law (I=P*A*T) - the impact (I) on the environment can be viewed as the product of the population size (P) multiplied by per-capita affluence (A), as measured by consumption, multiplied by the damage done by the technologies (T) employed in supplying each unit of consumption.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 18

Making Room for Human Will

In today's heated political arena, despite their dichotomous rhetoric, neither liberals nor conservatives have shown the will necessary to institute real change.  Liberals want perpetual economic growth in order to help the poor (unsaid: most liberals would like to at least preserve their current standard of living).  Conservatives need perpetual growth so that they can continue becoming wealthier (no ulterior motives).

We're Living on Borrowed Time

Much to the chagrin of both sides of society, 'only madmen and economists believe in perpetual exponential growth'.  This truth of natural science was advocated by none other than the white knight of western capitalism, Warren Buffet:

In a finite world, high growth rates must self-destruct.  If the base from which growth is taking place is tiny, this law may not operate for a time.  But when the base balloons, the party ends: A high growth rate eventually forges its own anchor. (1990 Annual Letter)

Side Note - An Exception to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Matter and energy is conserved.  To this there is no exception (cue for natural scientists to breathe a sigh of relief).  However, there is a third entity which does not seem to observe conservation: information.  Music, arts, literature, science, philosophy, spirituality, - these can 'grow without limit, and there is no reason they cannot grow vigorously in a steady-state economy.'  The end of growth is not the end of human civilization. It is simply the end of gluttony and greed, and all the avarice and suffering that come with them.


No Free Burnt Offerings

In the end, we need to make some tough decisions.  We should not 'seek a costless change, for there is none'.  There may be some which appear less painful (for us), but these often impose heavy burdens on others (including our children).  Though some of the sacrifices we need to make will bear a cost, should we expect it any other way?

"I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing"
2 Samuel 24:24

Living Within Limits - Chapter 17

The Benign Demographic Transition

In 1934, Adolphe Landry advanced the theory that the industrialized world will eventually settle upon a 'new normal'.  More importantly, the route that this will naturally take, is a decrease in birth rates.  This is known as the "Benign Demographic Transition" - benign because it is better to imagine a decline in the birth rate, than the alternative.  (In fact, the theory doesn't even mention the alternative)

Graphically, it can be represented as below.

The Alternative

Affectionately known as the "Malign Demographic Transition", this anti-theory presents the possibility that the new normal will be reached another way - through a dramatic increase in the death rate.  The causes of this are too numerous to list, however they could include such unpleasantness as nuclear war, viral outbreak, mass genocide, natural disaster, etc.

This is a possibility not often mentioned in popular culture... perhaps even a taboo

Question of Choice

The benign demographic transition is only possible through a conscious choice.  Humanity must decide to go down this route, through birth control measurements.

There is no indecision in this case.  Indecision is choosing the alternative.  If we do not make changes to our birth rate, we will have indirectly chosen to make changes to our death rate.  I hope we make the right choice.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 16

Trying to Escape Malthus

Observation has revealed a correlation that appears to contradict Malthusian principles: prosperous countries often have a lower fertility rate than poor countries.  This, in turn, has led to alternative theories on population and prosperity.

Sex as Anti-Malthusian?

Thomas Edmonds presented the idea that the poorer a people are, the greater will be their fertility because the only amusement they have is sex.  Among the wealthy, sex must compete with other amusements.

However, this theory is refuted by its inherent positive feedback.  In one scenario, an increase in population will lead to more misery, which leads to more sex and higher fertility, which leads to yet more population and misery, and so on and so forth.  Conversely, a decrease in population will lead to greater felicity, thereby leading to less sex and lower fertility, which feedbacks into yet sharper decreases in population...

Clearly such a theory is misguided, or at best, wholly incomplete.

Gluttony as Feedback?

Thomas Doubleday observed that, in some animals, over-feeding led to infertility.  From this, he deduced the general theory that fecundity is inversely proportional to the richness of the diet.  He used this theory to explain the relationship b/w societal wealth and fertility.

However, his flaw came from choosing examples that were unnatural.  For example, his observations were based upon human-raised swines, or domestic rabbits.  The eating habits of these particular samples have been artificially distorted.  In nature, no swine or rabbit would eat itself to the point of infertility (anti-darwinian).

Child Survival Hypothesis

Lester Brown was the one to present the theory that, by decreasing infant mortality rates, we can decrease a society fertility rates (if more babies survive to adulthood, there is less need by mothers to produce babies).

Though inconclusive, there is plenty of evidence that should give pause to philanthropists subscribing to this theory:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2173608
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1973552

Perceived child survival chances seem to have little influence on whether or not a woman desires additional children... Reductions in child mortality may have the short-term effect of accelerating population growth, until enough experience with decreased mortality is accumulated to effect a change in fertility desires... (Research in Guatemala)

Essentially, evidence suggests that, in the short-term, lower child mortality rates dramatically increase population growth (for up to two generations).  In the long-term, there does seem to be evidence that population limits and social awareness will lead to lower birth rates.  However, Hardin argues that this is a dangerous policy to pursue, particularly in nations which already suffer from overpopulation.

The Goal

Ultimately, we must not lose sight of the needs of the poor.  The urgent is to bring greater comfort into their lives.  Though infant-mortality reduction is morally commendable, the means should not become the end.  In addition to death-control, priority should also be turned to adequate birth-control, which is what will ultimately lead to decreased birth-rates, and greater prosperity.

Living Within Limits - Chapter 15

Nuclear Power

The most obvious alternative to carbon fuels is nuclear energy.  However, there remain some unresolved issues with peaceful human utilization of the power of atoms.

1) Unforgiving Danger - as is well known, nuclear power can potentially be very dangerous.  Though it is unlikely, aside from direct sabotage, that conventional nuclear power plants would ever experience a full-scale atomic explosion, there is the very real danger of radioactive exposure to human beings.  In fact, once the main reactor is in full operation, 'no one can ever go inside the shield, to repair or lubricate or adjust any of the reloading or control equipment inside... if an important part of it becomes inoperable we shut the reactor down and build another one'

2) Unresolved Disposal - nuclear reactors leave behind far more dangerous material, in the form of radioactive waste, than other conventional power plants.  In addition, the disposal of this material is further convoluted by the long half-life of radioactive material.  Unlike traditional waste, there really is no 'away' to throw radiation into, as dumping radionuclides into the desert may result in unintentional contamination of underground aquifers.

The dangers of nuclear energy are so profound, that attempts to quantify the theoretical costs of a potential nuclear disaster have been abandoned after several attempts.  This has, inturn, led to the creation of the Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance to, and caps the liability of, nuclear energy providers (akin to FDIC and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which limits the liability of offshore oil explorers, such as Deepwater Horizon, to $75M).  In my mind, this is a form of corporate welfare, and is asking for future disaster.

The New Priesthood

Alving Weinberg, long-time director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, was one of the most well-known defenders of nuclear power.  Below are his thoughts...

We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society.  On the one hand, we offer an inexhaustible source of energy... But the price we demand of society...

We make two demands.  The first... is that we exercise the very best techniques and that we use people of high expertise and purpose... managing and operating our nuclear power plants with people of higher qualification...  The second... (that) we have relatively little problem dealing with wastes if we can assume always that there will be intelligent people around to cope with eventualities we have not thought of...

 The price we must pay for this great boon... is a cadre or priesthood who understand the nuclear systems and who are prepared to guard the wastes... such speculations about 100,000 year-priesthoods must strike an eerie and unreal sound

 Pessimistic translation?  There is nothing wrong with nuclear technology as a viable source of near-limitless energy.  The problem lies in human nature, and our inability to even mentally conceive (much less actually maintain) the notion of a '100,000 year priesthood'.