File this under "etc."
I had one simple goal -- add a line to my AT&T family wireless plan for my son. I know, I know, I did check other carriers' plans and deals, since my contract with AT&T ran out long ago. But for various reasons I decided to stay with them. Why trade a known headache for an unknown one? Anyway, I went online with every intention of being finished in the space of 10 minutes. How naïve...
I wanted to get a basic plan, with just voice and minimal text messaging -- say 20 texts per month -- so that he can reach us in case of an emergency, but not abuse this disembodied conversation mode. And you would think that it would be easy to get this, right? Well, not so much. The only text option that came up on the screen was unlimited texting for $20/month. This was infinitely more than I needed, so I initiated a chat with a representative. He was effusively polite, and every time I volunteered information or responded to a question he thanked me very much for sharing this information. After several volleys, in which I thought I had conveyed my dilemma clearly and succinctly, he came back with "So, if I am understanding you correctly, you wish to change the text messaging plan on your phone." I did a rapid-fire "No, no, no," trying to get ahead of his rogue fingers as I imagined them poised to hit "change plan." You see, I am still traumatized from a recent experience with the cordial AT&T customer service representatives who "helped" me with an issue.
Just to give you the flavor for that episode, in the process of resolving a signal issue, they implemented such changes in my texting and data plans as to require several weeks of phone calls with the AT&T business office, a call and a correspondence with the Attorney General of Massachusetts, and a follow-up call with AT&T on the heels of their communication with the AG. So, no, I am not interested in having them "help" me with plan changes. I politely excused myself from the chat and decided to tackle it on my own.
But first I chose to distract myself from the problem at hand by doing another task that I had meant to do: increase my monthly minutes. This I was able to do without any glitches, and my success encouraged me to try again with the new line. Perhaps I missed something the first time?
Having considered my choices at this point, I made the decision that I would pay for a limited number of text messages for my son, at $.20/message, and this would take care of things. Smugly congratulating myself on such a creative solution, I went to complete the purchase. After addressing just a couple of minor issues stemming from the fact that my billing address is a PO Box and not a street address, and because lately everyone except the USPS has decided that I have played a joke on them by giving a non-existent address (don't get me started on the joys of living in rural America), I was almost home. I just needed to input my credit card information and... Wait a second! What's this? A credit check consent? I had to give them my social security number and consent to a credit check? Because I tacked an additional $9.99 monthly service fee to my (much larger than that) bill? After being a customer for nearly 6 years? After being able to up my monthly minutes by more than $9.99/month, without being subjected to a credit check?!!
Well, I did what anyone in my position would have done: I ignored this prompt hoping that it was optional. But it wasn't. Fill it in or else take yourself to a brick-and-mortar store to get this settled. Which is what I am choosing to do. But there is a larger moral here.
How did we get to this place, where our anti-trust protections have resulted in basically two gargantuan corporations essentially screwing the public in any way they see fit? Why do they get to dictate the devices and services that I need to purchase? How is this a free market? And how is it that this technology, whose intent is to make our lives so much easier, made me go through a bewildering amount of useless machinations only to end up with what? An offer to take my social security number and subject me to a credit check? Really?
And lest AT&T feel singled out by my rant, this is the trend with many events and purchases in life. Home insurance, for example, which, despite rising premiums, does not give you a penny towards rebuilding a retaining wall that collapses in a flood. In fact, the system is set up in such a way as to require you to file a claim, get it rejected and give the company the reason to fire you as a customer for filing too many claims. Health insurance (I don't have to remind you the galloping pace of the rise in those premiums), which covers less and less every year. Cable companies, computer manufacturers, automobile vendors, they are the ones that seem to know better than I what it is that I need, and they constantly and with impunity wrestle me into straightjackets of their packages. Where am I, the customer in all this? This old familiar strategy to maximize returns has been so successful in the food business that its legacy is the obesity epidemic, proliferation of chronic disease and shortening life spans. Is this really how we want to continue?
I will get that line for my son, and I will get only what I need. I would prefer not to be so dependent on this stuff; alas, I am. But mark my words, there is enough bad taste building among my fellow humans to start exploring alternatives. I only wish that the government were really in the business of protecting its citizens from unethical practices rather than pandering to the highest bidder. I am ready to stop being viewed as a giant walking ROI potential, and start being respected as a citizen and a human. How about you?
Showing posts with label consumerism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumerism. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Evidence-based... fashion?
The line between consumerism and obesity is not that difficult to draw, and mechanisms for this relationship are plentiful. Passively sitting in front of screens, consuming sugary drinks and snacks peddled by sponsors, forgoing outdoor activities have all been implicated in our lard problem. On the other hand, when we think of the clothing and fashion industry, we think of the opposite extreme of the eating disorder spectrum: anorexia. At the same time, some have suggested that, in fact, the unattainable thinning of the paragon of womanhood is itself responsible for the paradoxical growth in waistlines.
I think there is another mechanism at play in the fashion paradox. Have you noticed how our clothing sizes have become, shall we way, more forgiving? It seems to me that what is a size 12 waist today probably would have qualified for a size 16-18 two decades ago. Assuming that an inch has not changed that much over the last 20 years, something is wrong. Is there a big conspiracy by the clothing manufacturers to make us feel thinner than we are? This is not altogether inconceivable, since experience dictates that when one feels larger than normal, one may confine her wardrobe expansion to shoes alone and forgo a confrontation with the truth. So, encouragement from numbers may be just what is needed to drive continual clothing sales.
Another uniquely consumerist factor plays into this game: the microscopic half-life of a piece of clothing in the American closet. From where I stand, the American consumer is poised for a nearly 100% turnover of her wardrobe every season. And even if I am somewhat off in my estimate, there seems to be a sense of entitlement to a constant stream of new items. So, if this assumption is correct, it is easy to engage in a frequent deception about size by a constant creep of what is considered size 12, for example. The evidence of stable size we seek from new clothing is, thus, flawed.
So, once again I maintain that, in order to conquer our obesity problem, we need to turn away from consumerist ethic. After all, if I still have my size 12 pants from 4 seasons ago, and I can no longer fit into them, this is grade A evidence that I need to pay the piper.
I think there is another mechanism at play in the fashion paradox. Have you noticed how our clothing sizes have become, shall we way, more forgiving? It seems to me that what is a size 12 waist today probably would have qualified for a size 16-18 two decades ago. Assuming that an inch has not changed that much over the last 20 years, something is wrong. Is there a big conspiracy by the clothing manufacturers to make us feel thinner than we are? This is not altogether inconceivable, since experience dictates that when one feels larger than normal, one may confine her wardrobe expansion to shoes alone and forgo a confrontation with the truth. So, encouragement from numbers may be just what is needed to drive continual clothing sales.
Another uniquely consumerist factor plays into this game: the microscopic half-life of a piece of clothing in the American closet. From where I stand, the American consumer is poised for a nearly 100% turnover of her wardrobe every season. And even if I am somewhat off in my estimate, there seems to be a sense of entitlement to a constant stream of new items. So, if this assumption is correct, it is easy to engage in a frequent deception about size by a constant creep of what is considered size 12, for example. The evidence of stable size we seek from new clothing is, thus, flawed.
So, once again I maintain that, in order to conquer our obesity problem, we need to turn away from consumerist ethic. After all, if I still have my size 12 pants from 4 seasons ago, and I can no longer fit into them, this is grade A evidence that I need to pay the piper.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
USPSTF recommendations: Demanding manipulation from science
The recent uproar over the new screening mammography recommendations got me thinking about a lot of stuff. One of the lessons cited by some journalists and pundits is on how potentially volatile information should be presented to the public. The USPSTF was excoriated by critics not only for what it said, but how it said it. While the objections over the former can be dismissed as ravings of loud and poorly informed voices deliberately trying to hijack public opinion, the latter criticism is more insidious.
Some intelligent and balanced observers noted that the USPSTF really should have foreseen the fallout and laid the groundwork to make the sting of the recommendation less pronounced. In the corporate world this is called "making the rounds". This means that, when you have an idea, it is not enough just to present it on its merits in a group forum. Indeed, you must go around to those whose opinions matter and get them to sign on to your idea before you make it public. In this way, by furthering your relationships, you manipulate the outcome in your favor. This can take countless hours, but this is how things generally get done in the world of business.
The world of politics is similar, in that many reforms and decisions are dependent on behind-the-scenes deal-making between politicians. These clandestine transactions, the theory goes, assure the appearance of a successful outcome in the light of day. And a victory necessarily begets other victories.
Well, to be sure, science and academia are not immune from such politicking and manipulation. In fact, I have heard some assert that our academic institutions are the most politically charged enterprises, even more so than business and politics. So, in that respect, it is not unreasonable to expect some round-making prior to spilling the mammography beans. But what if we question this premise? What if we insist that science remain the last frontier shielded from political influences? I would argue that this should be our only stance on science, be it climate science or medicine. Science should be judged on its merit only, and not on its political ramifications.
In a society where business and political message machines spend countless dollars on market research surveys to package their manipulations to get us to follow their political and consumerist directions, the public is now angry that the USPSTF, a scientific body, did not take the time to effect an elaborate manipulation scheme to get the loud dissenters, and the rest of us, on board with their recommendations. Is it not outrageous that we, American adults, expect, and even demand, such manipulation instead of the straight unadulterated truth?
This is a sad reality of our time, following decades of indoctrination by marketers, educators and other "experts", to become compliant little consumers that we are today. How easily we are stirred into a rage by callous reporting and special interest demagoguery is telling. We are a mirror-mirror-on-the-wall society: we will not tolerate any truth that does not fit our conveniently preconceived notions of specialness and entitlement. And while this attitude gives us a peaceful soporific feeling one gets following a psychotic rage, it will make it that much more painful when this consumerist fog is replaced by the reality of shortages, as our cheap energy supply dwindles. Unfortunately, by then, it will be too late for the truth to set us free.
There is still time, though! Turn off the television, stop listening to and reading mass-produced messages designed to make you a quiet lemming on its way off the cliff. Focus closer to home, build your local community. And, yes, talk to your doctor about your mammography concerns -- you will surely walk away with a more satisfying conclusion and a feeling of self-determination.
Some intelligent and balanced observers noted that the USPSTF really should have foreseen the fallout and laid the groundwork to make the sting of the recommendation less pronounced. In the corporate world this is called "making the rounds". This means that, when you have an idea, it is not enough just to present it on its merits in a group forum. Indeed, you must go around to those whose opinions matter and get them to sign on to your idea before you make it public. In this way, by furthering your relationships, you manipulate the outcome in your favor. This can take countless hours, but this is how things generally get done in the world of business.
The world of politics is similar, in that many reforms and decisions are dependent on behind-the-scenes deal-making between politicians. These clandestine transactions, the theory goes, assure the appearance of a successful outcome in the light of day. And a victory necessarily begets other victories.
Well, to be sure, science and academia are not immune from such politicking and manipulation. In fact, I have heard some assert that our academic institutions are the most politically charged enterprises, even more so than business and politics. So, in that respect, it is not unreasonable to expect some round-making prior to spilling the mammography beans. But what if we question this premise? What if we insist that science remain the last frontier shielded from political influences? I would argue that this should be our only stance on science, be it climate science or medicine. Science should be judged on its merit only, and not on its political ramifications.
In a society where business and political message machines spend countless dollars on market research surveys to package their manipulations to get us to follow their political and consumerist directions, the public is now angry that the USPSTF, a scientific body, did not take the time to effect an elaborate manipulation scheme to get the loud dissenters, and the rest of us, on board with their recommendations. Is it not outrageous that we, American adults, expect, and even demand, such manipulation instead of the straight unadulterated truth?
This is a sad reality of our time, following decades of indoctrination by marketers, educators and other "experts", to become compliant little consumers that we are today. How easily we are stirred into a rage by callous reporting and special interest demagoguery is telling. We are a mirror-mirror-on-the-wall society: we will not tolerate any truth that does not fit our conveniently preconceived notions of specialness and entitlement. And while this attitude gives us a peaceful soporific feeling one gets following a psychotic rage, it will make it that much more painful when this consumerist fog is replaced by the reality of shortages, as our cheap energy supply dwindles. Unfortunately, by then, it will be too late for the truth to set us free.
There is still time, though! Turn off the television, stop listening to and reading mass-produced messages designed to make you a quiet lemming on its way off the cliff. Focus closer to home, build your local community. And, yes, talk to your doctor about your mammography concerns -- you will surely walk away with a more satisfying conclusion and a feeling of self-determination.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The century of unintended consequences
Where to begin? The phrase "unintended consequences" has been making rounds in healthcare, politics, and other venues of late. It appears most pronounced in healthcare, and has been clearly brought out by the cancer screening debate last week: while taking for gospel that early detection saves lives, we have been subjecting countless people to unnecessary, invasive and sometimes deadly interventions. Oooops, we say, an unintended consequence of our good intentions. You do not have to look far to see others. The mounting problem of antimicrobial resistance due to egregious overuse of antibiotics, mounting data on the downsides of the widespread use of proton pump inhibitors, manifest as an increased risk for C diff diarrhea, pneumonia, and most recently, because of heretofore unappreciated interaction with Plavix, strokes and heart attacks.
Unintended consequences can also be seen in other areas of our lives. The thoughtless experiment of mortgage-backed derivatives and their implosion, the nearly irreversible effects our thirst for fossil fuels on the environment can on the one hand be attributed as unintended consequences. But I have to say, I am not buying it. Letting us all off the hook with this innocent statement is as simplistic as it is dishonest. It is like letting your kid off the hook for stealing a candy from the store because he did not foresee being caught. In fact, even the expression itself, "unintended consequences", is seemingly designed to demonstrate our sudden passive and victim-like situation. "But I did not intend for this to happen, so I am an innocent victim here". Pshaw! Much of what we call unintended could have been foreseen, if we had the will to plan ahead. The issue is that we are not, and are steamrolling ahead from moment to moment with no thought given to long-term consequences.
It is a fact that Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg predicted in the 1970s that bugs would evolve resistance in response to our antibiotic warfare on them; even then he cautioned against overusing these agents. It is a fact that you cannot keep building a house of cards with imaginary assets without having it collapse. It is a fact that you cannot expect to keep drilling and emitting with one hand, while with the other eliminating vast carbon sinks, without noticeable climate change. It is also absurd to call our lack of viable fossil fuel alternative an unintended consequence: in what closed system can a resource be infinite? And once this resource is inevitably exhausted, what then?
In truth, the entire 20th century has been a cruel experiment in consumerism. Decisions made in the 1920s and the 1950s about converting the US citizens into a race of single-minded consumers were deliberate and well planned. And of course, the intention was clear: to increase the wealth of the few. I am confident that no one explicitly intended for this accumulation of wealth in a few hands to result in an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. But is it so difficult to imagine that this is a not unexpected result of single-minded pursuit of wealth? Over the decades of industrialization, farmers and small-scale merchants, able until then to support themselves independently, abandoned their country seats and their communities to move to the cities to fulfill the shining promise of wealth and happiness unscrupulously promulgated in the name of this relentless pursuit of wealth. When the internal combustion engine became a reality, and as the city populations expanded, the suburban dream was born, isolating people further into their cookie-cutter homes away from organic communities of their ancestors. The last 30 years of the 20th century brought with them the proliferation of technology that has allowed us to work 24/7, be connected (only virtually), and, more importantly, to buy stuff any time of day and night from anywhere in the world. This American dream has left 80% of the US population behind economically, our main fuel source on the brink of disappearance, and American society more unhappy and fractious than any other time in the past century. Our politicians and business leaders unabashedly preach selfishness, greed and lies. All in the name of money and power. Unintended consequences? I think not.
Today, when divisive politics are playing out on Capitol Hill for all the world to see unequivocally our degraded values around social support and responsibility, it is worth pausing to contemplate what we are undertaking today that will result in "unintended consequences" tomorrow. Is it honest to say that the poverty, crime, disease and deprivations in migrant worker shanty towns in Mumbai and Namibia and China and countless other places in the third world, migrants who abandon their rural communities in search of the Western promise, are all truly unintended consequences? Or are they really collateral damage of our sick zero-sum economic game? And just because these consequences were not our primary intent, we cannot wrap up in their cloak of innocence: these consequences were and are entirely foreseeable, convenient or not. We are guilty!
So, while we in-fight about who should have access to healthcare, whether abortion or gay marriage is morally tenable, and what Jesus would do, we have been made accessory to the real catastrophic atrocities -- a growing local and global economic apartheid in the service to our corporate masters. The ones that are bleeding are we and our children. But of course, these are just unintended consequences.
The good news is that we can each do something to mitigate this overwhelming disaster: stop buying crap you do not need! Stop buying it because it is on sale -- you already have enough crap. Think about it: some of the sale prices are not even enough to pay for the fuel it takes to run the machines that made the piece of crap in the first place. And it will probably end up in your trash within the next 12 months anyway. How is this living with the future in mind? Really, before you make your next purchase of anything, think hard: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Chances are, your purchase will only better the bank account of a small minority of people who have produced the item, and in the process contribute to the environmental and spiritual devastation for many. Stop being helpless, stop pressing the lever and stop being a cooperative slave to this insidious juggernaut of consumerism. You will feel better if you can claim intentionality in building a better and more lasting world.
Unintended consequences can also be seen in other areas of our lives. The thoughtless experiment of mortgage-backed derivatives and their implosion, the nearly irreversible effects our thirst for fossil fuels on the environment can on the one hand be attributed as unintended consequences. But I have to say, I am not buying it. Letting us all off the hook with this innocent statement is as simplistic as it is dishonest. It is like letting your kid off the hook for stealing a candy from the store because he did not foresee being caught. In fact, even the expression itself, "unintended consequences", is seemingly designed to demonstrate our sudden passive and victim-like situation. "But I did not intend for this to happen, so I am an innocent victim here". Pshaw! Much of what we call unintended could have been foreseen, if we had the will to plan ahead. The issue is that we are not, and are steamrolling ahead from moment to moment with no thought given to long-term consequences.
It is a fact that Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg predicted in the 1970s that bugs would evolve resistance in response to our antibiotic warfare on them; even then he cautioned against overusing these agents. It is a fact that you cannot keep building a house of cards with imaginary assets without having it collapse. It is a fact that you cannot expect to keep drilling and emitting with one hand, while with the other eliminating vast carbon sinks, without noticeable climate change. It is also absurd to call our lack of viable fossil fuel alternative an unintended consequence: in what closed system can a resource be infinite? And once this resource is inevitably exhausted, what then?
In truth, the entire 20th century has been a cruel experiment in consumerism. Decisions made in the 1920s and the 1950s about converting the US citizens into a race of single-minded consumers were deliberate and well planned. And of course, the intention was clear: to increase the wealth of the few. I am confident that no one explicitly intended for this accumulation of wealth in a few hands to result in an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. But is it so difficult to imagine that this is a not unexpected result of single-minded pursuit of wealth? Over the decades of industrialization, farmers and small-scale merchants, able until then to support themselves independently, abandoned their country seats and their communities to move to the cities to fulfill the shining promise of wealth and happiness unscrupulously promulgated in the name of this relentless pursuit of wealth. When the internal combustion engine became a reality, and as the city populations expanded, the suburban dream was born, isolating people further into their cookie-cutter homes away from organic communities of their ancestors. The last 30 years of the 20th century brought with them the proliferation of technology that has allowed us to work 24/7, be connected (only virtually), and, more importantly, to buy stuff any time of day and night from anywhere in the world. This American dream has left 80% of the US population behind economically, our main fuel source on the brink of disappearance, and American society more unhappy and fractious than any other time in the past century. Our politicians and business leaders unabashedly preach selfishness, greed and lies. All in the name of money and power. Unintended consequences? I think not.
Today, when divisive politics are playing out on Capitol Hill for all the world to see unequivocally our degraded values around social support and responsibility, it is worth pausing to contemplate what we are undertaking today that will result in "unintended consequences" tomorrow. Is it honest to say that the poverty, crime, disease and deprivations in migrant worker shanty towns in Mumbai and Namibia and China and countless other places in the third world, migrants who abandon their rural communities in search of the Western promise, are all truly unintended consequences? Or are they really collateral damage of our sick zero-sum economic game? And just because these consequences were not our primary intent, we cannot wrap up in their cloak of innocence: these consequences were and are entirely foreseeable, convenient or not. We are guilty!
So, while we in-fight about who should have access to healthcare, whether abortion or gay marriage is morally tenable, and what Jesus would do, we have been made accessory to the real catastrophic atrocities -- a growing local and global economic apartheid in the service to our corporate masters. The ones that are bleeding are we and our children. But of course, these are just unintended consequences.
The good news is that we can each do something to mitigate this overwhelming disaster: stop buying crap you do not need! Stop buying it because it is on sale -- you already have enough crap. Think about it: some of the sale prices are not even enough to pay for the fuel it takes to run the machines that made the piece of crap in the first place. And it will probably end up in your trash within the next 12 months anyway. How is this living with the future in mind? Really, before you make your next purchase of anything, think hard: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Chances are, your purchase will only better the bank account of a small minority of people who have produced the item, and in the process contribute to the environmental and spiritual devastation for many. Stop being helpless, stop pressing the lever and stop being a cooperative slave to this insidious juggernaut of consumerism. You will feel better if you can claim intentionality in building a better and more lasting world.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Our children's future: healthcare vs. peak oil
Do you believe in peak oil? What is peak oil? Peak oil, also referred to as Hubbert's peak, is a projection, based on our historic patterns of consumption, of when the demand for oil will outstrip its supplies. The world uses about 80 million barrels of oil per day, mostly in the transportation sector. So, to keep up with this demand, at least this much oil needs to be excavated from the ground daily. In reality, even more is needed to keep some in reserves. Hubbert was a geophysicist who in the 1950s predicted that, based on the current patterns of oil consumption, we would reach peak oil sometime early in the 21st century (see graph).
How is this possible, you ask? A better question is how can it be otherwise? If you really think about it, oil is the product of the earth's development and evolution. It is an alchemy of dead organic matter and glacial and volcanic catastrophes brewed slowly over hundreds of millions of years. In this sense, oil is not a renewable resource, at least not within the human time frame. And as you can see, the curve of the production until the peak appears mostly exponential, with some stops and starts. Exponential growth, by virtue of its accelerated trajectory, is unsustainable in a closed biological system, where the production of resources cannot keep up with their consumption.
So, peak oil is not hard to imagine, given our gluttonous consumption of it. So, why is it that the international body, the International Energy Agency (IEA), responsible for forecasting our oil situation has been so reluctant to admit to the impending peak oil? Turns out, according to a report in today's Guardian, that it has been cooking its numbers because of the pressure from the US. An unnamed whistle-blower has come forth to indicate that
We can make up all kinds of stories about the potential reserves. I am not sure why these stories seem more plausible to the same people that energetically deny human contribution to the climate change, except to say that we believe what is convenient for us to believe. Everything you see on the graph below beyond the real oil reserves is imaginary. But, even if it were feasible to get at these potential resources, they would be fraught with an enormous carbon footprint, not only while mining, but also when used as fuel.
And, by the way, haven't we learned our lesson about investing in imaginary assets? Is that not what our investment banks were doing with the mortgage-backed derivatives?
Come on, people, the writing is on the wall. Fossil fuels are on the brink of exhaustion. And we have more "stuff" than we can use in multiple lifetimes! Let's stop for a moment and take the toll of what we have done to the planet. Let's really consider our children's future, and their children's and theirs. In fact, perhaps we can remind ourselves of this old Iroquois philosophy:
How is this possible, you ask? A better question is how can it be otherwise? If you really think about it, oil is the product of the earth's development and evolution. It is an alchemy of dead organic matter and glacial and volcanic catastrophes brewed slowly over hundreds of millions of years. In this sense, oil is not a renewable resource, at least not within the human time frame. And as you can see, the curve of the production until the peak appears mostly exponential, with some stops and starts. Exponential growth, by virtue of its accelerated trajectory, is unsustainable in a closed biological system, where the production of resources cannot keep up with their consumption.
So, peak oil is not hard to imagine, given our gluttonous consumption of it. So, why is it that the international body, the International Energy Agency (IEA), responsible for forecasting our oil situation has been so reluctant to admit to the impending peak oil? Turns out, according to a report in today's Guardian, that it has been cooking its numbers because of the pressure from the US. An unnamed whistle-blower has come forth to indicate that
"...the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves."Why would the US encourage such deception? Apparently because we are worried about the implications of this revelation to the markets. So, while shouting loudly about fiscal restraint and sloganeering about the impact of universal healthcare coverage on our children's financial future, our nation, with its eyes shut tightly, has been on a collision course with a very real and close wall of peak oil. This is simply unwise.
We can make up all kinds of stories about the potential reserves. I am not sure why these stories seem more plausible to the same people that energetically deny human contribution to the climate change, except to say that we believe what is convenient for us to believe. Everything you see on the graph below beyond the real oil reserves is imaginary. But, even if it were feasible to get at these potential resources, they would be fraught with an enormous carbon footprint, not only while mining, but also when used as fuel.
Come on, people, the writing is on the wall. Fossil fuels are on the brink of exhaustion. And we have more "stuff" than we can use in multiple lifetimes! Let's stop for a moment and take the toll of what we have done to the planet. Let's really consider our children's future, and their children's and theirs. In fact, perhaps we can remind ourselves of this old Iroquois philosophy:
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."This is our opportunity to consume less and to tell President Obama to make a real difference in Copenhagen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)