A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.
"Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.
The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."
"And after that?" asked the Mexican.
"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the Mexican.
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."
The Whalers Could Save Us All
For the last two and a half decades, the state of Pennsylvania has produced an average of 7.5 thousand barrels of crude oil per day.(1) This is a modest improvement compared to the steady 25 barrels being produced per day in 1859, when one man in Titusville changed America - and inadvertently saved the whales.
Circa the mid-1960s, worldwide whaling was a lucrative industry - on the decline, sure, but still lucrative. During the 17th and 18th century, whaling helped to give the United States its economic superiority. Nearly every part of a whale could be used for something. Whale oil could be used to light lamps, make soap and lubricate factory machinery. A particularly waxy substance known as ambergris, found in the Sperm whale’s head, could be used in certain perfumes, as well as to make candles that didn’t smoke or give off a foul odour. Their bones or baleen were used in corsets, children’s toys and other household products.(2,3) At its peak in the early 1900s, some 50,000 whales were being killed worldwide annually.(4) More than three quarters of the whaling ships during the early 19th century were American.(5) Of course at this point in history, the technology wasn’t available to make whaling as efficient as it would become and too many ships were hunting too few whales. Many species were hunted to near extinction; some of which - the Blue whales specifically - have still to recover.(6)
Enter Edwin Drake, former railroad conductor, and Samuel Martin Kier, inventor and businessman. The two are credited with being the first Americans to drill for oil and refine it, respectively. The process of drilling and refining crude oil proved to be much more cost-effective than whaling, never mind that there were more ships in the waters than whales. Crude oil proved to be just as versatile as harvested whales; being used to light lamps, fuel trains and automobiles, lubricate machinery, make plastics and so on. It would appear that just as the whaling industry was reaching a point of exhaustion, human ingenuity stepped in to save the day.
And here we are again, a century and a half later, apparently having learned nothing from the whalers. The United States is now (unsurprisingly) the largest consumer of oil on the planet (19.5 million barrels per day), with the European Union following at a close second (14.4 m bbl/day) and China trailing in third, with a little less than half the US‘ daily consumption (7.8 m bbl/day.)(7) Whether you believe that peak oil timing(8) is an exact science or a government conspiracy invented to control market prices, one thing we must agree on is that the current rate of consumption is unsustainable. The main concern isn’t about running out of oil; in the very near future - perhaps even presently - the key question is whether or not supply will outpace demand.
This question was answered in 1946, with the formation of the International Whaling Commission and the signing of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.(9)
More than 70 countries have since signed the convention. It seems most of the world has recognized that our over-consumption is irresponsible and detrimental (to say nothing of ethics) to the long-term survival of many species of whale, as well as the ecosystems they help to maintain. So why can’t we transfer this mindset into other areas of life?
While its true that the establishment of the IWC was due in part to political, economic and public pressure (therefore not entirely altruistic,) it doesn’t change the fact that the cessation of most whale harvesting for commercial consumption is a good thing. Moreover, the near-exhaustion and potentially irreversible damage that could have been done should hopefully serve to inspire the next breed of young economists, civil engineers and politicians to reform a system which seems so bent on repeating past mistakes.
--
References:
1. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm
2. http://www.ehow.com/about_4588623_whaling-s.html
3. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/641450/whaling/65552/Whale-products
4. http://luna.pos.to/whale/sta.html
5. Superfreakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner, pg. 142-143
6. http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
7. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
9. http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#convsigs
10. http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/convention.pdf
Circa the mid-1960s, worldwide whaling was a lucrative industry - on the decline, sure, but still lucrative. During the 17th and 18th century, whaling helped to give the United States its economic superiority. Nearly every part of a whale could be used for something. Whale oil could be used to light lamps, make soap and lubricate factory machinery. A particularly waxy substance known as ambergris, found in the Sperm whale’s head, could be used in certain perfumes, as well as to make candles that didn’t smoke or give off a foul odour. Their bones or baleen were used in corsets, children’s toys and other household products.(2,3) At its peak in the early 1900s, some 50,000 whales were being killed worldwide annually.(4) More than three quarters of the whaling ships during the early 19th century were American.(5) Of course at this point in history, the technology wasn’t available to make whaling as efficient as it would become and too many ships were hunting too few whales. Many species were hunted to near extinction; some of which - the Blue whales specifically - have still to recover.(6)
Enter Edwin Drake, former railroad conductor, and Samuel Martin Kier, inventor and businessman. The two are credited with being the first Americans to drill for oil and refine it, respectively. The process of drilling and refining crude oil proved to be much more cost-effective than whaling, never mind that there were more ships in the waters than whales. Crude oil proved to be just as versatile as harvested whales; being used to light lamps, fuel trains and automobiles, lubricate machinery, make plastics and so on. It would appear that just as the whaling industry was reaching a point of exhaustion, human ingenuity stepped in to save the day.
And here we are again, a century and a half later, apparently having learned nothing from the whalers. The United States is now (unsurprisingly) the largest consumer of oil on the planet (19.5 million barrels per day), with the European Union following at a close second (14.4 m bbl/day) and China trailing in third, with a little less than half the US‘ daily consumption (7.8 m bbl/day.)(7) Whether you believe that peak oil timing(8) is an exact science or a government conspiracy invented to control market prices, one thing we must agree on is that the current rate of consumption is unsustainable. The main concern isn’t about running out of oil; in the very near future - perhaps even presently - the key question is whether or not supply will outpace demand.
This question was answered in 1946, with the formation of the International Whaling Commission and the signing of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.(9)
“The Governments whose duly authorised representatives have subscribed hereto ... recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks; Considering that the history of whaling has seen over-fishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing ...”(10)
More than 70 countries have since signed the convention. It seems most of the world has recognized that our over-consumption is irresponsible and detrimental (to say nothing of ethics) to the long-term survival of many species of whale, as well as the ecosystems they help to maintain. So why can’t we transfer this mindset into other areas of life?
While its true that the establishment of the IWC was due in part to political, economic and public pressure (therefore not entirely altruistic,) it doesn’t change the fact that the cessation of most whale harvesting for commercial consumption is a good thing. Moreover, the near-exhaustion and potentially irreversible damage that could have been done should hopefully serve to inspire the next breed of young economists, civil engineers and politicians to reform a system which seems so bent on repeating past mistakes.
--
References:
1. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm
2. http://www.ehow.com/about_4588623_whaling-s.html
3. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/641450/whaling/65552/Whale-products
4. http://luna.pos.to/whale/sta.html
5. Superfreakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner, pg. 142-143
6. http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
7. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
9. http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#convsigs
10. http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/convention.pdf
Afghaniscam
An interesting follow-up to my recent article Remembering Afghanistan, this is an article written for al Jazeera.
The recent presidential election was a spectacle of fraud; the Afghan Army may hardly exist; and the ill-trained Afghan police are known to operate on the principle of corruption.
(more...)
The recent presidential election was a spectacle of fraud; the Afghan Army may hardly exist; and the ill-trained Afghan police are known to operate on the principle of corruption.
(more...)
Marxism 2009
Slavoj Žižek is a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic working in the traditions of Hegelianism, Marxism and Lacanian psychoanalysis. He has made contributions to political theory, film theory, and theoretical psychoanalysis. He's written and edited a number of books and articles, a list can be seen here.
The World Gossip Column
Are media agencies really reporting valuable news? It seems more often than not, stations like Fox News, CBS, CBC and CNN have more in common with the tabloids than bona fide journalism.
If their jobs were to be taken seriously, they would report the facts, not produce speculation based on rhetoric. Articles would be informative, but at the same time productive and objective. Sensational stories about crime, conflict and scandals would be passed over with detachment, in order to report without being inflammatory. What we have now is homogenized – reality for entertainment purposes only. Whether nightly or up to the minute: the hottest stories are being reported. Not because we citizens need to know, but because compromising journalists have masters too – and most of us bow to the almighty dollar.
It’s easy to shake a finger at the major media corporations for churning out all manner of stories in order to pad their ever-burgeoning bottom lines; but shouldn’t we, as citizens in a democracy, be demanding more honest reporting from our news? Or is this utopian? Are we, the few who actually want to hear the important stories, stuck to the fringe media groups for all eternity?
If their jobs were to be taken seriously, they would report the facts, not produce speculation based on rhetoric. Articles would be informative, but at the same time productive and objective. Sensational stories about crime, conflict and scandals would be passed over with detachment, in order to report without being inflammatory. What we have now is homogenized – reality for entertainment purposes only. Whether nightly or up to the minute: the hottest stories are being reported. Not because we citizens need to know, but because compromising journalists have masters too – and most of us bow to the almighty dollar.
It’s easy to shake a finger at the major media corporations for churning out all manner of stories in order to pad their ever-burgeoning bottom lines; but shouldn’t we, as citizens in a democracy, be demanding more honest reporting from our news? Or is this utopian? Are we, the few who actually want to hear the important stories, stuck to the fringe media groups for all eternity?
Remembering Afghanistan
The year is 1978 and the future looks bright.
Reforms are being passed to separate the church from the state. Land reforms - such as the banning of usury and debt peonage - take place to ensure rural citizens a better quality of life. For the first time in the history of the country, women are given the right to vote, they must also receive an equal education, the same job security and the same health benefits as men.(1) Aide is being secured to modernize the country’s infrastructure; new roads are constructed, new schools and hospitals are built, and new water wells are drilled. Forced marriages were banned. Men were obliged to cut their beards and women were forbidden from wearing a burqa. This was the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and it lasted less than a year.
At the time, it was called an attack on Afghan culture – an attempt to forcibly “Westernize” the country, but is that really what was happening? Is that what’s happening in Afghanistan now? Since then, Afghanistan has known only war. They’ve endured three decades of conflict; severely impeding any efforts to improve education, health care, or generally progress with the rest of the world, as a modern society.
Could the current conflict have been avoided? Perhaps. With the Cold War still ongoing at the time, any Communist government was perceived as a threat by the United States. The situation in Afghanistan was a chance to draw the Soviets into the Afghan trap. It became an “opportunity [to give] the USSR its Vietnam War.”(2) In the years to come the Islamic mujahideen movement, opposing the new government - and the Soviet occupation - was given billions of dollars to fund its purpose. They were lauded in the Western media as “freedom fighters.”(3) Among their ranks were Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden.
The country’s right to self-determination was effectively quashed, and would remain so up-to-and-including the time of writing this article. The current war in Afghanistan is simply an extension of the last. It’s a bi-product of Western short-sightedness and interference; what economists call a negative externality. US aide to the Afghan freedom fighters unwittingly contributed - in no small part - to today’s most well known pan-Islamic Jihadist organization – al Qaeda. The rest is international history.
Our predicament now is, how – and when – do we bring our troops home?
“After the US-led coalition successfully toppled the Taliban regime, an international conference was held under the auspices of the United Nations in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001. Canada actively participated in the conference, which led to the signing of the Bonn Agreement. The agreement provided for Afghanistan’s transition to democracy through the establishment of an interim administration committed to peaceful coexistence, reconstruction, democratic elections and gender equality. Canada and the international community agreed to support the new interim administration, as well as the Bonn process, by contributing to the establishment of peace and stability in Afghanistan. Canada then formalized its support for the interim government by resuming full diplomatic relations with Afghanistan in January 2002.”(4)
Unfortunately these objectives are only slowly being realized. The problems created during the Afghan-Soviet war (and prior) are interconnected and multi-dimensional. Three decades of war have left the country with some of the lowest literacy rates in the world(5); “The [Afghan National Army]’s tactical skills are developing well. They are well aware of how to deal with Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and react well to contact with the enemy. However … the large lack of literacy amongst the ANA impedes everything from complex logistics issues to reading the nightly guard duty shift log.”(6) This single problem poses an immense hurdle. Without an effective, self-sufficient military presence, the country will once again be overrun by the Taliban. Furthermore, with a deficit of professionals and educators, how will the country progress?
All ambivalent moral or ethical considerations aside – whether you support the war or not – these people deserve peace. They’ve raised a generation of children in an active warzone. Although we may be far removed from the original conflict, the current conflict and the consequences of our actions (or complacency, as the case may be,) we have a duty to assist where we can in the development and positive progression of any nation that requires it. And we owe all of our soldiers a debt for their sacrifices. At the very least, we ought to remember what Afghanistan could have been, in 1978.
__
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anahita_Ratebzad
2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
3. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183d.htm
4. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0738-e.pdf
5. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_statistics.html#56
6. http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/2009/10/27-eng.asp
Misc.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/fallen-disparus/index-eng.asp