Global Warming: A Growing Woe

I am of the opinion that the whole so called global warming/climate change issue is too complex a subject to just apportion blame willy-nilly onto the veritable human being, especially as no real workable solutions are put forward by the activists and pundits of global warming/climate change theories.

We live in a self perpetuated and accepted way of life that puts much emphasis on finances and wealth. We mostly all work for a living because of that culture: Those that sponge of the system are looked upon as just that; spongers (why don’t you get a job, you lazy good-for-nothing so-and-so.)

The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy: two human qualities that make life liveable and mostly comfortable. We are becoming automaton of technology and convenience while overlooking the consequences of those actions (I have money, why should I care.) Anyway there are enough charities to contribute too to pacify that nagging conscience.

I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.

Add to the above equation an emotional subject such as global warming/climate change and a calamity is created at the forefront of the human perception and psyche. The situation is mostly aggravated by the fact that traditional means of incomes are threatened by the call for closure/minimalisation of factories, manufacturing plants and energy utilities – oil is bad, coal is bad, CO² is bad, methane is bad, flatulence is bad, meat is bad, mercury is bad, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, obesity is bad, paper is bad, planes are bad, motor vehicles are bad, smoking is bad, fertiliser is bad, et al.

The above-mentioned commodities supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.

The call for cleaner and renewable energy utilities is adding to this woe for most of the proposed renewable energy generating theories require little human intervention and hands-on skills (not labour intensive); and are expensive to boot.
Developed countries are being asked to provide assistance (money) to developing countries so that they too can implement ‘earth saving’ initiatives. This in itself is seemingly the-proper-thing-to-do, but the underlying catch is that it’s the tax-payers living in the developed countries that will have to foot this noble expense. It must be said that altruism and charity, although seemingly noble, do not fix the underlying problem(s).

So yes, global warming and climate change is a reality of life on earth. It has been for countless of centuries and nothing we do will stave off that inevitably. And yes, our contribution to that ‘inevitably’ can also be counted and measured. And yes, many proposals have been put forward by pundits and activists alike – some more aggressively than others, to what needs and must be done to put off that ‘inevitably.’

What most do not want to take-in is that the problem is not that simple to solve. Those that are at the forefront of the war for change, are mostly gainfully employed or living of the welfare of others, or living on some plot of land (usually wrongly occupied or left behind as an inheritance) growing their own meagre crops feeding themselves and their offspring: close to nature, so to speak.

What most also do not take in is that there are factors outside the control of the veritable human being viz. Volcanic eruptions, solar flare-ups, earth’s passage through the galaxy/universe, moving tectonic plates, etc, that add to the ‘inevitably’ equation.

The ‘legacy’ issue also plays an emotive role in the whole cry for survival i.e. what of the future of my children, what about the poor animals, etc.

And then there is technology; another detractor.

Technology has provided a portion of the human race with tools that have made the acquisition of knowledge easier and cheaper. Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with powers that were previously not easily enacted i.e. freedom of expression (good and bad,) global empathy (good and bad,) power to circumvent despotism, cyber anarchy, etc.

Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with feelings on invincibility and immortality i.e. blogs will live long after one has expired, I can say what I like to whom I like without fear of physical consequence, the power of anonymity, governmental/corporate feel-good marketing campaigns, etc.

And not forgetting the power that technology has granted the giants of human-thought-manipulation i.e. the media, the swaying of public opinion, bending of outcomes to suit a given objective, popularising a certain way of life, sensationalising a happening for the sake of profit, etc.

I have over the past years made it my business to follow the reasoning behind the global warming malady by reading, watching, researching and pensively thinking about the issue at hand (from both sides of the spectrum.) I have also, in view of the few points mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, tried to formulate an opinion that encompasses the problem as a whole, without going off the activist deep-end.

My take on the problems facing the required ‘global warming’ mindset change always comes back to one glaring point: economics. What happens to the petrol industry workers when the petrol plants are done away with? What happens to the meat farmers when people minimalise eating meat? What happens to the livestock when people discontinue feeding on them? What happens to the pilots when people minimise flying? What happens to the motor vehicle industry workers when motor vehicle manufacture is minimised or done away with?

Thus in essence, solve the economics of living and the problem at hand is minimised!

Although the predicament of the human-inflicted global warming danger is a growing one, being self-centred and antagonistic in forcing people to change their sceptical fearful mindsets will not change the internal motivational drives of the human being.

The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either alternative gainful employment is generally guaranteed or, that a new means of income generation is devised i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing business.

Irrespective of what is said and done, my overriding opinion is that the inevitable will happen and that no amount of political posturing and or activist will and or new-age bluster will change that ‘inevitably.’

It is the now-or-later scenario that remains on the table.

The Poor be Damned!?

The other day while listening to another well-meaning politician sprout foibles on the eradication of poverty, I was struck by the lack of solutions in his speech. This phenomenon is common whenever politicians or people get-together to source solutions to an ever-present, and growing, social ailment.

This lack of presentable solutions is more of an ill than the whole poverty paradox. Poverty is solvable. The problem arises mostly from the reality that solutions are money based and that in itself, will require a mindset change by the way many think about money.

Money or even the mention thereof is a taboo in most languages. Yes, most will talk freely about other peoples money, but their own is a guarded secret.

Many, when confronted by poverty, will jump on the get-a-job horse. Others will look the other way. Some will put some pennies into the begging-tin and drive off in a rush. Few will attempt to come up with short term solutions (meals-on-wheels, shelters, charity drives, etc) but find themselves alone in the fight-to-eradicate-poverty.

There have been many workable solutions put forward by thinking individuals on changing the way society views and thinks about money:

1) The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived by Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year.

2) The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been encouraged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less. This plan would cost the government less than the present welfare systems, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy factors.

3) The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Again this would cost "the government" less than the present welfare systems. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody would know if it was supplementary income or a refund.

My take on the whole eradication of poverty is a simple one.

In South Africa we have a Lotto entity that pays out huge amounts of money in a given year (In excess of 50 Million Rand.) With an estimated population of 50 million persons, a conservative disbursement of 250 thousand Rand per person would elevate all to a liveable economic level and rid the SA society of the terms poverty, poor and the-poor-of-the-poor in an instant

.
From the outset, my avaricious money-based common-sense screamed louder than a wailing ambulance siren: the rich would get richer, many would stop working thus creating economic chaos, employers would loose their power over their remaining employees, politicians would not be happy, inflation would shoot sky high, the money markets would suffer, what about the work ethic (did not the ancients say that one needs to work to acquire wealth,) how would the disbursement work, who would oversee the disbursement process, etc, etc, etc.

On the other hand, would people not revert to doing what they enjoy doing, would not their creative potential rise to the fore collectively, etc?

As the global situation stands, the human race future looks bleak. To survive longer than its nose, it needs to elevate itself above clichés of old, do away with wage slavery, embrace humanity and move forward to a co-operative mind-set for the good of all.

Alas, I feel that humanity will remain doomed.

(with thanks to Robert Anton Wilson)

Online Shopping: The New Cup of Tea

During the past holiday season, my fancy took me to surfing online shopping sites. A form of consumerism that is becoming popular in leaps and bounds.

All at once I could view, compare and critique items across a wide spectrum of commodities and articles and suppliers; all from the security of my home PC. It was like entering a new world. One where fancies, likes and imagination could be satisfied on the spot. Of course, the money issue did put a damper on the googly eyed adventure. In essence, a reality very much like the traditional way of shopping; except for the armchair bit.

In between the hours spent online, I kept thinking as to the popularity of the medium at hand: Is the South African populace in tune with this medium? Which population demographic finds this electronic shopping experience attractive? What is popular? What about the legal paperwork? Probability of scam attacks and phishing expeditions?

To the first and second question, in speaking to friends and acquaintances, I derived that generally middle to high income households have shopped online: be it tickets to a movie, to a motor car. Most also tried their hand at grocery shopping. Thus the appeal is there.

What was fascinating is how members of the lower income demographic made use of internet cafes (the least of all secure sites) to carry out their order of business (The numbers in question were few but growing.)

The interesting bit came in the guise of some using the information at hand to do comparisons, then going to a physical shop to purchase the selected item in question. Fear of Credit Card information theft and of the faceless entity behind the online façade were the greatest deterrents to actually buying online; specially when substantial payment had to be made (I use one dedicated credit card with low limits to transact across the world wide web.)

Thus more questions came to mind: What would make the online experience more palatable and attractive? What would make the existing system more secure? What would quell the fears a consumer has about shopping online? What impact would the incoming consumer protection act have on the online shopping fraternity (would online service providers have to be RICA’ed or FICA’ed?) Would this action put to the inherent consumer fear of shopping online? Would a ‘comment box’ assist the consumer in voicing their opinions on the service, articles, etc?

The one avenue I found in my searches relates to the commonality of after-sales support more so than the offering of an online shopping portal. In the whole, retail companies offer online after-sales support structures: An operator will contact a consumer after a certain lapse in time to find out about the satisfaction perception. If positive, then all is well, if negative, then how can they assist!?

The above process tends to mostly placate and pacify consumers to the inferred ethos that the company cares.

As a whole, those that can, make use of online shopping to buy low to mid-priced items. The caution factor kicks in where huge payments have to be made. Here the consumer will go to the physical shop and pay there.

The lower income groups use the net more for comparison and availability purposes rather than outright online buying. The picture with the lower income groups is that the mindset is changing as the costs of internet hosting are dropping. The advent of intelligent mobile phones is also helping to change the mindset.

Personally I found the whole exercise insightful and calming: the threats are there, but with a small amount of internet savvy, threats can be managed and overcome.

Will I continue to buy online? Yes! Sensibly so.