The Land of the Free

A leisurely cup of coffee in bed instead of a run today. 

Leisurely but not relaxed, because Spiegel International is carrying a frankly terrifying report on the attitude of up to half the people in the US towards Muslims. Terrifying because what is generally regarded as the most powerful nation on the planet will probably soon elect a government which fails to differentiate between the religion of 23% of the world's population and the actions of a small group of extremists.
As the economic centre of gravity shifts away from the West and we have to confront reduced affluence and influence, the conservatives (literally those who wish to conserve the status quo and to deny the movement of our societal tectonic plates) in the US and Europe will be flailing around looking for scapegoats to blame - and who better than an easily identified group of "foreign" people, a tiny faction of whom had the temerity to attack the US. History is full of such pogroms, and of people standing aside to let them happen, and there is little indication that we've changed much since medieval times, let alone since the 1930s.

The glass is also half full as well as half empty though and there are apparently just as many people in the US and Europe who do not share this childish over-simplification. We can only hope that we find both the courage to expose the prejudice, and the stamina to keep doing so.

Yuck

A beautiful bright morning after a dire few days, and a very enjoyable run.

As cracks appear across the Eurozone, and mad Republicans begin to fly in circles around Obama, some good news is very welcome: research is underway to create viable human food from insects (ref). Actually, this isn't news at all - it's been going on for ages, but it is becoming increasingly important. 

Crickets and locusts are already well recognised in some parts of the world as being highly nutritious and even the humble mealworm has great potential. Unlike beef, with its notorious fodder conversion factor of 1:10, insects are much more efficient at around 1:1.5. Crucially, at least some insects also have the ability to convert organic waste into edible food, which could be a massive contribution to sustainable food production.

The yuck factor is being taken seriously for the pampered & infantile Western consumers, so when the 1^st insect-derived products arrive in supermarkets in an estimated 5 years time it’s unlikely that the particular species will be identified, at least until we can learn to appreciate the subtle tasting notes of free-range organic roaches/maggots/midges.

The other side.

An exhilaratingly windy run this morning, as we catch the skirts of Hurricane Katia.

Meanwhile, the Guardian has published an excellent analysis of the situation in Somalia, by Madeleine Bunting, which is another part of the context in which to view what happened on 9/11.

The prevailing narrative in the western media is that the current famine is the latest misfortune to hit this unstable country, where the best efforts by international aid organisations are stymied by hostile extremists such as al-Shabaab. A potential death toll of 750,000 is currently being predicted, but hey, what can we do in the face of such intransigence? And anyway it's only Africa, and they don't even have any oil.

Well - it would appear that one thing we could do is to understand that, like any conflict, neither side has a monopoly of truth or justification. A major factor which has destabilised the region for the last 10 years has been the disastrous "war on terror" waged, in this case covertly, by the US, which is precisely why there is such hostility to, and mistrust of, western intervention. Until that is recognised, and respected, the carnage seems likely to continue.

In memoriam

A wet morning but an enjoyable run.

This will be my last post until next week, so there is really only one topic - 9/11. 

Without making judgements, two facts seem to stand out.

On 11 September 2001, 2,996 people were killed as a result of what was undoubtedly an act of war – the first on US territory for a long time, and consequentially very shocking and very well documented.

As a result of the less well documented "war on terror" which followed, primarily at the instigation of the US & UK,  estimates range between 73,530 & 1,173,600 (that's an uncertainty factor, or apathy factor, of 15) as the number of people so far killed in Iraq & Afghanistan (ref).

Economical truths

There is much discussion in the UK media about whether the taxes paid by the 320,000 wealthiest people should be reduced (ref). The given reason for tax reduction is to help the UK economy by encouraging foreign investors and “talented workers” to come here. The high tax rate applies to earnings above £150,000 ($240,000) per year, so they must be pretty talented. Twenty leading economists have published a letter in the Financial Times to say that this tax is harming the economy.

Let’s give those twenty economists the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had no role in the financial disasters of the last few years. Even so, the question of whether the UK is better or worse for having these high earners seems more one of logic & morality than economics. The tax only applies to earnings over £150k. So, only people earning considerably more than £150k will be significantly affected. That’s people earning not just 15 times the minimum wage but maybe 150 times the minimum wage.

Whether we view recent economic events as a blip to be recovered from or as the long-overdue bursting of a bubble, a policy of encouraging such a large gap between rich & poor at least deserves wide ranging public debate, preferably involving moral philosophers and unemployed people as well as career politicians and economists, to examine whether the UK would be better off or worse off as a tax-enhanced haven for people who want to make huge amounts of cash.  

Meat & veg

A blustery morning and a vigorous run.

The Observer this week carried a small piece on the ethics of food production which managed to point out two anomalies in our collective thinking about what we are prepared to eat.

The first is the familiar but nevertheless extraordinary inconsistency which allows the slaughter and consumption of some animals but which extends a sentimental protective shield over others. Often the differentiation is one of age rather than species. The genetic nurturing instinct towards the very young of any species seems to extend to a prospective meal too.

The second is the notion that meat-based agriculture is an environmental disaster whilst vegetarian agriculture is sustainable. The author, Lucy Siegle, very sensibly observes that any large scale monoculture is environmentally disastrous – and not least the production of soya (ref). Sorry, tofu-eaters.

The issue is another version of the energy question - not only should the "developed" world consume a lot less, but we have to become a lot more discerning about where it comes from, and do what we can to generate our own.

Shock Doctrine

A very misty morning, and a slightly mysterious run.

Less mysteriously, Chancellor George Osborne has added his dulcet support to the government’s move to “simplify planning laws” as a way of helping economic recovery. This lovely piece of double-speak clearly means “watering down planning laws to encourage private developments at the expense of the environment, using the financial crisis as an excuse for driving through more & more extreme measures of capitalism”.

Simultaneously, the Guardian reports that the government is in discussion with Helios, a German multinational private hospital chain, to take over some NHS acute services – a “market” (sic) worth £8bn (ref). Presumably this is to "simplify" the health service too.

Possibly the only glimmer of light just now is the BBC carrying an article suggesting that maybe Marx was right about capitalism after all.

The glass is 22% full

Another dark & damp morning but an enjoyable run.

Today the Independent is carrying a report about a survey of global attitudes to eco-friendly products. Apparently 83% of consumers across the planet believe that companies and corporations should have "environmental programmes" but only 22% of us are willing to pay more for them. So, by implication, 61% of us believe that the cost of environmental protection should be borne by either the manufacturer (yeah, right) or the labour force at the production end. Or, 61% of us aren't connecting the two factors.

However, today is Saturday, and the endorphins from running are a great help to positive thinking, so let's acknowledge that almost a quarter of global consumers say they are willing to pay more to protect the environment !

Poor David Cameron

A damp and rather gloomy run this morning, musing about a revealing interview on the BBC, as the UK representative of Libya’s National Transitional Council was asked whether Britain & France would get preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts to repair the damage to this oil-rich country after the last 6 months of military action, compared to others such as Germany who had been less enthusiastic about sending in the bombers. The NTC representative, Guma El-Gamaty, showed great restraint & dignity as he explained that such bias would hardly be consistent with the transparent democratic process that they now aspire to.

Meanwhile another veil drops as it emerges that the oil company Vitol, a major source of funds for the UK Conservative party, was mysteriously given exclusive rights to trade with the Libyan rebels during the conflict (ref).

All of this must come as a shock to David Cameron who, by his own admission, had simply been doing what was morally right, rather than cynically manipulating a conflict for the sake of financial benefit. Now he's putting on a brave face, strutting around like a bantam cock, but inwardly the poor chap is probably contemplating resignation on ethical grounds !

a + b = c

Another bright morning and a good run through the woods. 

A Norwegian architect, Bjørn Berge, writing for the Scottish Ecological Design Association, has produced a remarkably succinct summary of our ecological dilemma: the global economy is an open subsystem subordinate to the earth's ecosystem, which in turn is finite, without the possibility to grow. As long as the economic subsystem grows it will incorporate more and more of the total ecosystem, until the limit of 100% is reached.

Sadly, multinational capitalists will probably see such an analysis as a challenge rather than a hazard warning. After all, why be concerned about tomorrow if you can become obscenely rich today. Let's privatise the entire planet ! Whoop whoop !!