A blog in the Christian Science Monitor, by Mary Wiltenburg, has a story, and video, of advice to President Obama from the children of Georgia’s International Community School.
These kids have some pretty adult advice
“Second graders want him at their birthday parties. Sixth graders want to end homelessness. Third graders worry about job loss. Kindergartners are eager to come to his house and play. For the past month, students at Georgia’s International Community School have been sharing advice and messages for President Barack Obama, collected in our latest slideshow.
Much of it comes from personal experience with issues of global importance.
“My uncles go to Iraq and have war. One of my uncles died before,” a fourth-grader explained, “and I really want you to stop that, because I’m from Iraq, north Iraq.”
Kids related their families’ struggles with unemployment, housing, and utility bills. Students born in Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, and the US begged Obama to end fighting in different corners of the world.
In addition to serious worries, kids were entranced by the first family. They complimented Michelle Obama’s dresses, shared messages for Malia and Sasha, and empathized with the challenge of choosing a First Dog. One second grader with an impending birthday had thought through the logistics of inviting the president.
“You can bring your guards,” she assured him, “and you can sleep over.”
What advice would you give President Obama?
Mine has nothing to do with policies. It’s a problem I have seen with every President, losing touch with the people. It is all to easy for Presidents to surround to themselves with people who think like they do, tell them what they want to hear, and not what they may need to know.
The White House, and Capital Hill, can be a very insular places. It is far to easy to become seperated from the reality that every day Americans live in. How much it actually cost to buy food and clothing.
My simple advice is don’t lose touch with the people in the street who voted you into office. They are the real America, not the politicians in Washington.
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 20, 2009 at 8:13 am
ric booth
My advise: Remove the Immigration / Naturalization agency from the DHS and defense department and allow them to re-establish themselves as the welcoming group who offers hope to the tired, hungry, and poor.
February 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm
edfromct
Ric, each new group of immigrants into the US has helped to re-energize our society.
There are many jobs that for whatever reason Americans won’t work at, such as farm labor. The US Government should do more to match the needs of businesses like farmers who need their crops harvested, with immigrants willing to do this work.
I don’t have a good answer to the problem of illegal immigrants crossing our border but we do need to treat them more humanely. They are just trying to provide for their families and should not be treated like criminals.
February 20, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Indian Lake Papa
Mixed emotions on this one ED – The first 2 or 3 kids expressed concern w/global warming – that is a very debatable issue that needs more facts.
The immigration issue – that is a tough one. We need to secure our borders but I also agree with your comments about migrant workers. I use to play with the migrant workers kids. I lived smack dab in the middle of a cherry orchard for several years.
February 21, 2009 at 10:20 pm
edfromct
Papa, one only has to look at the rapidly shrinking polar ice capes to see the effects of global warming. You are right the question of much human activity is contributing is debatable.
We do need to take action now to slow down these effects, as best we can, to give our grandchildren the best chance of being able to deal with what is likely to be dramatic changes.
Dramatic changes are likely to occur no matter what we do and we must properly evaluate the cost of whatever action we do take versus the risk of not doing enough.
It is a good thing neither one of us is in charge of immigration policy.
I know you and Mama treat everyone you meet with the same love.
Having lived in a cherry orchard are you now tired of cherry pie?
February 22, 2009 at 6:34 am
Indian Lake Papa
I still love cherry pie – the best! Use to attend the National Cherry Festival every year in Traverse City, MI.
February 22, 2009 at 1:27 pm
edfromct
Cherry Pie is a great desert, even if my name isn’t “Billy Boy”.
“Can she make a cherry pie,
Billy Boy, Billy Boy?
Can she make a cherry pie,
Charming Billy?
She can make a cherry pie,
Quick as a cat can wink an eye,
She’s a young thing
And cannot leave her mother.”
During the Cherry Blossom Festival in DC even the politicans can’t spoil the beauty of cherry tress in full bloom.
Site of the Offical Cherry Blossom Festival:
http://nationalcherryblossomfestival.org/cms/index.php?id=390
February 22, 2009 at 10:26 pm
lovewillbringustogether
For those who ‘doubt’ the part humans are playing in the warming of our planet here are two relevant and indisputable facts:
1. Unlike ANY other living thing on this planet the human race has not yet reached it’s ‘natural’ ceiling in terms of numbers. We are currently at 6 .7 billion and rising (up from 5.8 billion in 2000) – this is more than SIXTY FIVE times the world’s population in the time of Christ. It is estimated to double again from 2000 levels by 2070 and this takes account of the first recorded ’slowing down’ in pop growth (most recently doubling every forty years) due to the increasing inability of the planet to feed the current rate of growth and the reduction amongst the ‘poorer’ countries like India and China of childbirths as they become ‘richer’ and fewer kids are ‘needed’ to ensure the parents will be fed and cared for by their kids in their dotage.
There is NO good news there however because of the massive size of our population now means even small increases in percentage result in still massive numbers of us being born and needing so much in life and because of fact #2…
2. Economic growth over and above the population rate in the two most populated countries in the world (and in many others besides), China and India, bringing more and more of their populations citizens ‘up to’ the similar standards US consumers ‘enjoy’ will mean even greater increases in the world’s production of energy and transport which results in ever more greenhouse gas being produced. Combine this with the clearing of forest land for purely economic benefits without concern for the ability of the earth to balance the CO2 – O2 cycle and you get ever greater CO2 in our planet’s thin, fragile atmosphere.
Despite the Kyoto Protocol being agreed to by all Europe and a few other countries in a serious effort to reduce emissions, they increase unabated to the point where EVERY SINGLE YEAR we add from HUMAN contribution of energy and industry alone (that we as consumers drive), more than one percent to the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere.
While the planet HAS had these levels in it’s past it has NOT had them in human history. The world we now live on (not least in terms of land area and weather patterns) will not be the same because of what we have done, are doing today, or will do for some years to come.
Many people will die and many more will become homeless because of the change we contribute greatly to, because, unlike any other living thing on Earth – we just don’t know when to say: Enough IS Enough – and Change begins with ME! We always seem to want ‘more’ while not wanting to pay more for it, but less (so we can afford even more!)
Humans – and our human greed – are currently viruses to life on Earth – and ones that will result in massive, potentially terminal sickness unless we learn and learn quickly.
What i have seen so far from us all and our so-called leaders does not inspire me to much confidence.
<B
February 22, 2009 at 10:48 pm
lovewillbringustogether
Ok now i’ve had my little (passionately heartfelt) rant
Here is what i think Mr Obama NEEDS to have ‘explained’ to Him because clearly his predecessors recently have not had the slightest clue about.
Debt.
For Busines and almost all politicians and their advisors (who are largely big businesses) debt is simply a useful tool to enable the wise person to gain more income and capital growth (which, along with larger profits are the Economic ‘God’) A little caution is needed to manage debt but on the whole it is considered by these people a beneficial ‘plus’ in the ledger.
To the vast majority of the population however, who have fairly ‘fixed’ incomes that they are limited by the number of hours in a day they can work, debt is not a tool – but an expense. it does not increase their incomes but diminishes it. it is not a tool, but a curse, one they are fooled into believing can benefit them when in fact it results in the current economic disaster – there comes a point in most people’s lives where the ratio off debt to income becomes unsupportable and the world’s economy that is based upon increasing debt – collapses.
If we were all capable of living within our ‘means’ there may be no problem like the one we are all suffering under today : History shows we are far from being that capable and Mr Obama needs to understand this – as a matter of urgency.
Giving the people a temporary increase in income will NOT fix the problem – only less, not more, debt will. Along with the self-restraint that is needed to live within our means and not put it on our card so we can pay for it later.
What is needed is more personal responsibility. When was the last time you saw a bank advertising for us to save more and spend less?
And in case you had not heard… Under Mr Bush’s Economic wisdom the US increased the level of national debt ( to other countries/banks) over and above what he inherited by $10,300,000,000,000 !!!
Each citizen’s share of that total is $34,300 give or take (and remember that is not your total debt just the amount it increased by from 2000-2008). Somehow your debt will eventually need to be repaid – try asking GW for a loan!
<B
February 23, 2009 at 3:12 pm
edfromct
Love, another very interesting “rant”.
1. “Unlike ANY other living thing on this planet the human race has not yet reached it’s ‘natural’ ceiling in terms of numbers.”
I don’t believe we humans are near our “natural ceiling”. That is the point where there is not enough resources, land & food, to sustain our population.
For land there is still many places in the world with little or no people, and with some help from technology we could build floating cities in the oceans, and eventually in space and other planets. There is an overpopulation problem in too many parts of the world. This does lead to instablilty, war and starvation. There is an answer, ending tribalism and using birth control.
For food modern farming technology allows us to produce as much food as we need. There are countries with too many people and not enough food. Once again there is an answer with birth control and spending resources on farming, not tribal and religious wars.
Those socities that don’t adopt birth control and learn to share resource, stop wasting them on war and religion, likely won’t survive. Those that do will.
2. “Many people will die and many more will become homeless because of the change we contribute greatly to, because, unlike any other living thing on Earth – we just don’t know when to say: Enough IS Enough – and Change begins with ME! We always seem to want ‘more’ while not wanting to pay more for it, but less (so we can afford even more!)
Humans – and our human greed – are currently viruses to life on Earth – and ones that will result in massive, potentially terminal sickness unless we learn and learn quickly.
What i have seen so far from us all and our so-called leaders does not inspire me to much confidence.”
Comment – I agree that in some socities many people will become homeless and die because those socities don’t learn to adopt to whatever changes in the environmet are coming.
I also agree that if we don’t learn to significantly change how we live, get and use energy, then more people will die and become homeless, as the world’s oceans rise, then need to.
I also lack confidence that most people, and their leaders, recongnize the rate at which the environment is changing, and will be too in adopting the changes this requires.
The longer it takes us to signiifcantly change how we live the bigger price our grandchildren will have to pay.
As far as we humans being like a virus I have no problem with that. We are just another organism on the plant, like bacteria, virsus and kangaroos. The same dynamics are at work in all species.
February 23, 2009 at 3:56 pm
edfromct
Love, on to part two:
Debt
“Giving the people a temporary increase in income will NOT fix the problem – only less, not more, debt will. Along with the self-restraint that is needed to live within our means and not put it on our card so we can pay for it later.
What is needed is more personal responsibility. When was the last time you saw a bank advertising for us to save more and spend less?
What is needed is more personal responsibility. When was the last time you saw a bank advertising for us to save more and spend less?”
Comment – Capitalism = Debt, we can’t have one without the other.
I agree that the current problems were created by everyone, citizens, businesses and governments, taking on too much debt. I also thinks this is part of the cycle of boom and bust that goes along with capitalism. I don’t know how to avoid it.
In the 1920’s the US government did nothing about the signs of the impending economic crisis. When the Great Depression hit we had an unemployment rate over 25% and soup lines of homeless people.
The current plan of government spending is designed to prevent 25% unemployment and soup lines. How high will the unemployment rate go, how many people will lose their homes, if the government does nothing, like it did in the 1920’s?
My guess is the rate would likely go no higher than 15%. I think this “stimulus” program is billions more than it needs to be. However doing nothing would be far worse.
This is where I believe our two party system, in the US, will work. The Democrats will not hide their heads in the sand and do nothing. The Republicans will keep the Democrats from bankrupting the government.
Capitalism works, but it does mean taking on debt to finance economic growth. That means living through cycles of boom and bust.
February 24, 2009 at 12:16 am
lovewillbringustogether
Re: Part 2.
“Comment – Capitalism = Debt, we can’t have one without the other.”
i hold it to be a fallacious propostion that any part of the human race ( that desires true happiness in a just and fair society) needs either.
Most ‘tribal’ (primitive) societies contain a majority of people who have learned to seek a balance with their natural environment and other tribes (albeit with some inter-tribal skirmishes) who seem to be on the whole far happier with their lot than our society generally does.
The initial ‘gloss’ and appeal of modern ( ie typical American) society that attracts many to it because of the relative ‘novelty’and variety it holds compared to that a more primitive society member might see in their own society almost inevitably wears off and they find that life on the other side is invariably not as green as it at first appeared.
Growth for growths sake is what a cancer does and ultimately it kills the organism it depends upon for it’s very survival – it is self-defeating.
Capitalism seems set to ignore or deny this truth not make provision for it.
Only recently has the planet felt the first stage of this cancer. Many other species (we are all in this together) have been eliminated already before their time had ‘come’ because of ‘Capitalism’ and the greed of man it encapsulates.
Short term gain (even if it lasts a century) is not to be traded for long term survival.
i think the REAL problem with debt currently is though – it is unsustainable at recent levels and no-one seems prepared to acknowledge this and want to believe ‘we’ can fix this and come out better than before we went in – with yet more debt.
i don’t believe that will be the case nature does not operate in this fashion and it has been around a LOT longer (still with ‘booms and busts’) than we humans ever have – or will.
<B
February 24, 2009 at 1:14 am
lovewillbringustogether
Re part 1
to the best of my knowledge no other single type of
bacteria, virus or kangaroo has occupied totally (to excess in many places on the planet) every continent and habitable region on the surface of the globe, caused the planet’s atmosphere to be modified to significant degree, caused entire river systems to be dehydrated to near fatal levels or caused the extinction of many other species (and now threatening to endanger itself) as does the virus ‘man’.
And as i am desperately trying to point out will only get worse as we breed and grow economically at the same time and recent rates – for the current forseeable future without serious challenge by us.
Just what part of that does not frighten you or do you have no problem with??
<B
February 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm
edfromct
Love, Pt.1 cont’d
It was a bacteria, cyanobacteria, that changed the entire atmosphere of the earth to allow life as we know it to exist. Nothing we humans have done can match that.
I would be thrilled if homo sapiens can match the adaptability and survivability of virus and bacteria. That is why I consider equating mankind to virus or bacteria to be a compliment.
Our own bodies contain millions, billions?, of virus and bacteria. To them, if they can think, we are nothing more than a vessel that provides them with a home and food. We can’t live without them.
Every change we cause to the environment has an overall neutral effect on life. Some species adopt, and thrive, and others can’t change and die off. To rats and cockroaches we are superheroes.
The question is will we humans survive the changes in the environment that are inevitable.
I see the need for growth, and every other human activity, as part of the natural process of evolution and natural selection. It is neither good or bad, it’s just a process. An incredable, amazing process. It’s our human brain that supplies the adjectives. The consequences of how we live, how we control this growth, will decide if our species survives or becomes extinct.
Homo Sapiens have survived, thrived, through a few “Ice Ages”. We have the ability to adopt, what is open to question is will we adopt quickly enough to survive. Will our societies evolve to eliminate war before we blow ourselves up.
I am an optimist, that is my bias. The question to me is not whether we will survive, it’s how many people will suffer and die before we evolve enough to create the kinds of societies where we live through peaceful cooperation, not violent conflict.
February 24, 2009 at 7:42 pm
lovewillbringustogether
I congratulate you on your almost unique ability to argue from a point of almost total indifference to your personal survival ( albeit perhaps ‘helped’ by your conviction that somehow – against all historical evidence – that man can somehow solve his serious mental issues that threaten his very existence and results in huge numbers of human death and misery – along with the odd ‘improvement’ to our ( now ‘extended’) daily lives.
Seriously, i do admire your ability to fairly dispassionately contemplate the evolution process which may or may not result in total human destruction and has a fair to even chance of your own personal future demise (although i will concede that this process is unlikely to adversely affect you personally in the remainder of your ‘anticipated’ likely lifetime (assuming science does not invent an immortality pil/fountain of youth)l any time in the interim
I am somewhat more concerned though for such folk as Kassidy and Kota Hodge having a similarly unaffected lifetime.
“Every change we cause to the environment has an overall neutral effect on life. Some species adopt, and thrive, and others can’t change and die off. To rats and cockroaches we are superheroes.
The question is will we humans survive the changes in the environment that are inevitable.”
At it’s most basic level i would reluctantly agree with your first point there.
The problem i currently see is that unlike almost every other form of change to the environment by a single organism species the change we are increasingly responsible for contributing to will affect not just our ‘local’ environment, but the entire planet and all life upon it. No other organism has achieved anything like this since our coming down from the trees – what we are currently doing is Unique – and is unnecessary and is – as i see it – immoral.
It is not ‘natural’ evolution any longer – it is human-formed evolution.
And when it comes to human wisdom versus ‘natural wisdom’ i’d go with the natural kind being for the ultimate best of all concerned (not just the species ‘man’.
“I see the need for growth, and every other human activity, as part of the natural process of evolution and natural selection. It is neither good or bad, it’s just a process. An incredable, amazing process. It’s our human brain that supplies the adjectives. The consequences of how we live, how we control this growth, will decide if our species survives or becomes extinct.”
I would agree – to a point – the point is we place ourselves ABOVE the natural evolution process and modify it according almost solely to the need of a few members of a single species – to the cost of all others and life on earth! – THis is most definitely NOT ‘right’ in my mind.
“I am an optimist, that is my bias. The question to me is not whether we will survive, it’s how many people will suffer and die before we evolve enough to create the kinds of societies where we live through peaceful cooperation, not violent conflict.”
Now i think we are apporaching some ‘consensus’
How many people will die or suffer needlessly before we all wake up to what we have done – have become?
What is the ‘opportunity cost’ of our continuing to expand scientific knowledge without the wisdom to apply it? or to continue the never before experienced population growth in combination with economic growth that currently would require five planet earths to support it in terms of natural materials – assuming we all had the same ( US) level of lifestyle/consumption?
Who would deny anyone on this planet the right to live as we do even though it is impossible for the current 6.7 billion of us to have access to suficient material for it to occur?
As a last point, it is not only a matter of overcoming man’s ‘violent’ war-loving nature (as evidenced by our long history, most recently with Iraq and in Gaza) but of overcoming our massive human ego that thinks it can do what it feels like and to hell with the billions who will now suffer to various degrees, if they live long enough, in the ‘process’.
Do you personally owe anything to those ‘fellow’ humans?
Would you, as an organism in the process of evolution, have any/more/less say in the process than those who contribute the most to this destructive viruses ‘progress’?
<B
February 24, 2009 at 11:41 pm
edfromct
Love, Pt 1 cont’d
“What is the ‘opportunity cost’ of our continuing to expand scientific knowledge without the wisdom to apply it? or to continue the never before experienced population growth in combination with economic growth that currently would require five planet earths to support it in terms of natural materials – assuming we all had the same ( US) level of lifestyle/consumption?”
I disagree that we humans are reaching some critical mass number in terms of the ability to produce enough food and energy to sustain our current population levels, and much higher ones.
The most populous country in the world, China, approaching 2 billion(?), has no starvation that I have read about. Political unrest yes, but no starvation.
I do agree that resources, or the technology to mazimize those resources, are not evenly distributes among the citzens of the world. The rich have far more than their share and the too many poor not enough. This is wrong from a morality stand point and also for the survival of our speicies based on natural selection.
There is nothing historically new about an unequal distribution of resources. Where we seem to disagree is on whether our socities our becoming more or less moral, resources are being divided more or less equally. Where I see, overall, the humans species is beginning to build better socities, you see us humans progressing towards our extinction.
It is interesting that people with religious faith have a negative view of humanity, from my perception, while atheist have a far more postive view of humanity and the future.
“It is not ‘natural’ evolution any longer – it is human-formed evolution.”
I think this is one of the irrconcilible differences between how I as an atheist view humanity and you as a believer in God view mankind. My view is that homo sapiens are a part of nature and any affect we have on our evolution, or the evolution of any other species, is therefore natural.
I think we agree on the need to significantly change how we live and share our world with our neighbors, both human and every other living thing on our planet.
I think we agree that if we don’t change how we live we will likley become extinct.
We also agree that there will be far too much suffering inflected upon those the who don’t presently share in these resources, the poor and homeless, those living in war ravaged countries, then there is a need for.
I am not that optomistic for the short term, the next 10 to 20 years. I am very optomistic in the long run, 50 to 100 years from now. (just to throw out some numbers).
We disagree on the likleyhood that man will create new and better societies. My perceptions is that you, and almost all the Christians I know, don’t believe that mankind has the moral will(?) to change and our extinction is enevitiable.
February 25, 2009 at 8:37 pm
lovewillbringustogether
Very well said Sir!
i must apologise if most of my comment appears to be ‘negative’ compared to your determined optimism for the human race.
As i have mentioned before, i think, we are not that very different in almost all ways of thinking. The reason i might sometimes appear so ‘contrary’ is that i see little value in commenting all that much on our agreement – since we already think similarly. I see the point of discussion being to show the reasons for our different thought so that better understanding of opinion other than our own can be gained. (and if one or other of us have an ‘error’ to give a chance of it being rectified by our learning from others, myself as much as anyone)
Regarding the ‘non-starvation’ in China: Do you think China would allow any serious reporting of it if it exists? We only got to see a little of the oppression of dissent over land take-overs in China because of the massive foreign journalist invasion due to the Beijing Olympics. China is a VERY oppressive regime.
The other factor to consider is that for centuries China has been an agricultural farming society who mostly are self sufficient in terms of food it’s population has been ‘large’ for some time but it’s land area and soil quality is not increasing while it’s population is not only increasing by literally thousands of humans per DAY (and China HAS a one-child policy and is about the only country to face this issue), but it’s farmers are increasingly leaving the farms to move to the city and are becoming FAR more prosperous and so consuming far more than ever before – while the land area does not change. (Therefore imports will increase causing ever greater pressure on other countries to produce more to ‘feed’ Chinese people – often at the expense of it’s own citizens survival’ or it’s natural resources depletion ( like the Amazon and Indonesian rainforest which the EARTH depends upon for it’s stablilty now being converted to palm oil plantation/farm land.
India might be a more realistic country to look at for the starvation level?
Not that i think for one second India would have accurate government statistics on the numbers of children who die every year through poverty induced malnutrition.
As i said ( which no-one seems to be able to ‘get’ yet??) if the world’s CURRENT population was kept stable ( impossible under todays conditions of government non-intervention to child-bearing) and we allow all humans a level of lifestyle comparable to the AVERAGE American it would take FIVE planet Earths to provide the land area, food production, water supply and metal and other resources like wood, plastic etc for us to sustain the way we could all live. That all have the same RIGHT to live.
There is only ONE planet Earth – Not five.
Our population is rapidly increasing, not staying stable.
America is trying to increase it’s current level of lifestyle and set the ’standard’ for others to aim for, not reduce it’s consumption.
and however you paint it – that is just not possible to do for any length of time at no ‘cost’ – we are only just beginning to make the first ‘payment’.
This is not, in my opinion, in any way ‘Bibllical’, but scientifically inevitable.
My ‘feeling’/opinion of the future of humanity and life on earth in the short- medium term ( ie: my and any potential future children’s lifetimes) is rather negative and unhopeful, rather than being full of positive hope/outlook… but it is in NO way connected to my ‘Faith’.
I think you quite accurately described the essence of the views we hold here but i would hope to make this point…
I can assure you i had some similar feelings (but not quite of the same reasons as now) back before i attained my current faith and back when i would most firmly have declared myself to be ‘Atheist’/scientist.
I used to strongly feel science was the best ’solution’ and provided the best answers to the problems of the world. To some extent i still think it beats whatever would be in ’second’ place.
What i feel and KNOW now though is… Science is not ‘in charge’ of man’s future…
it never was.
Business is
Economics is
Finance is
and all these are controlled by a few intelligent self-interested, greedy, and quite narrow-viewed men…. none of whom warned anyone of the impending financial disaster now being felt and suffered all over the globe. ( no longer do one country’s disasters mostly affect only that country – we’re much more now a global economy it is this level of ‘Domino effect’ that causes me the greatest concern for our massive population of this planet).
There are any number of men of vision and great humanity who dedicate their lives for the betterment of mankind in many fields…
And ALL of them depend upon the few who can finance their research… it is the profit motive that determines most scientific achievement today.
This is why i have so little hope for man’s future – not through any hope of a better life to come in the hereafter. I can easily ’seperate’ my own thought of personal ’salvation’ ( which in me is actually kinda ’shaky’)
and my opinion on mankind’s chances in the 21st Century.
I assure you one has no connection to the other.
When people in America can elect men like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush into the most powerful office in the world and allow them to be ‘informed’ by the caderie of self-interest groups that they were (and will be with Obama also) it only adds to my sense of despair.
The truly sad thing is…
Obama only has to be a mediocre, at best, President to seem like an incredible ’saviour’ of all life on earth, compared to his predecessor.
Which i am quite sure to many – who are living in total desperation in ‘the greatest country on Earth’ – he will be for a while to come.
<B
February 25, 2009 at 11:18 pm
edfromct
“I used to strongly feel science was the best ’solution’ and provided the best answers to the problems of the world. To some extent i still think it beats whatever would be in ’second’ place.
What i feel and KNOW now though is… Science is not ‘in charge’ of man’s future…”
I agree science is not charge of anything. It’s a process and how it is used is up to mankind. Science does provide the technology, that if properly used, can give man the tools needed to adequately deal with problems like food and energy production.
Advances in farming technology can increase food production more than 5 times, to meet any increase in the worlds population. Producing the food is not the problem. Getting the food, perserving it, to those countries with a food production deficit is the problem. I read somewhere that India loses as much food to spoilage as actually gets to the markets in the cities.
The starvation exist because civil wars disrupt food production and distribution. My guess is that those countries that are unable to end tribal and civil wars are the socities that will become extinct.
“And ALL of them depend upon the few who can finance their research… it is the profit motive that determines most scientific achievement today.”
I think the “profit” motive, Capitalism, will continue to spur International trade. This I believe will lead to future conflits being fought with money, not guns. The hard part will be to overcome ethenicty, religion and nationalism which provide the fuel for today’s wars.
I think us older folks are stuck with our traditions of the past. My hope is the young who will reject these traditions and create new and better socities. That’s evolution.
We don’t continue to evolve that I agree we are likely to go extinct.
February 27, 2009 at 2:37 am
lovewillbringustogether
‘Science does provide the technology, that if properly used,…’
As old Scottish poet Robbie Burns may well have said: ‘Aye – there’s the Rub’
I think the 60’s provided evidence that Youth ‘can’ change things – sometimes.
I think the fact that today’s messes are caused by that same youth 40 years on shows us human nature (it’s stupidity) is quite ‘resilient’ and things don’t stay ‘changed’ the way we would hope very long in this world.
Our history has not provided much evidence we have ‘evolved’ very far ( say in the last 2-3000 years – certainly not in comparison to the evolution of scientific knowledge and i for one believe that – barring massive catastrophe – humans will never ‘catch up’ , let alone keep pace with that evolution.
The current ‘argument concerning man-made global warming being a case in point.
There was a good report on TV last night (Science ‘magazine’ style show – Catalyst) concering Argo floats (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2501110.htm) which have shown that the southern ocean (Surrounding the Antarctic continental ice shelf) is warming at TWICE the rate those predicting global warming predicted and has been increasing it’s warmth steadily over the last 15 years. It also shows that the actual near surface temperatures are twice what older ‘normal methods’ of measuring surface observations have shown and which some scientists use to claim the predictors are being ‘doomsayers’ and are not right. Warmer seas means higher sea levels and less ability for seawater to collect CO2 in solution so yet more gets pumped in to the atmosphere along with the mass of human produced CO2 and mechanical heat from our burning of fossil fules/forestation.
Vicious cycle as more CO2 means more solar heat trapped; heat means warmer oceans once the Antarctic ice melts – say goodbye to your beach and say hello to a 20 ft higher shoreline – thats vertical feet not horizontal!
<B
February 27, 2009 at 7:32 pm
edfromct
“Science does provide the technology, that if properly used,…’
As old Scottish poet Robbie Burns may well have said: ‘Aye – there’s the Rub’ ”
I think we agree on the question. I am a lot more hopeful that mankind will find the right answer before the changing environment passes us by.
“The current ‘argument concerning man-made global warming being a case in point.”
Looking at all the evidence that continues to be complied it is hard to understand why this is still a question to many, including my countries ex-President. I can understand there being some question of how much mankind is contributing as a percentage to the overall changes in global warming. The obvious answer is too much.
However, even if we completely eliminated our contribution to global warming, and I don’t see how we can, the ocean temperature and sea level would still change, just it always has.
“Vicious cycle as more CO2 means more solar heat trapped; heat means warmer oceans once the Antarctic ice melts – say goodbye to your beach and say hello to a 20 ft higher shoreline – thats vertical feet not horizontal!”
The Argo floats are adding much valuable information about the changes in ocean tempatures and ocean levels.
That changes are occuring should not be a surprise. Our prior predictions were off because we did not have the accurate readings systems like Argo provide. This means that we are getting better at guessing ocean levels for the future.
From a January 16, 2009 article in the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/science/earth/17sea.html
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations climate effort, estimated in its most recent report (2007) that sea level might rise by about as much as two feet by 2100. Many experts regard the estimate as optimistic.
Even a modest acceleration of sea level rise will have a negative effect on the region’s coastal wetlands, the report says, adding, “It is likely that most wetlands will not survive” a two-foot rise.”
A link to the IPCC site, http://www.ipcc.ch .
The two feet prediction was based on data compiled in 2007. We will have to see what the new data indicates when the IPCC report is issued in July of this year.
The two questions are:
1) Can mankind significantly slow down the rate of rising ocean levels by changing how we live, make and use energy, and will we take adequate and timely action.
2) Can mankind adopt to changes in environment, which are occuring, and will always occur.
My guess is that we will be able to adopt to any changes in the environment, but that we won’t act timely enough to prevent catastrophic loss of life.
For me the survival of the human race is not in question. The questions is how many lives will be lost before we take whatever actions are needed.
February 27, 2009 at 9:32 pm
lovewillbringustogether
We’re very close in alignment on this
‘1) Can mankind significantly slow down the rate of rising ocean levels by changing how we live, make and use energy, and will we take adequate and timely action.’
Can we and will we are 2 questions
I think ‘Yes’ to the first part, with a but: but the longer we take to act and the less drastic our actions the less significantly we can affect the changes to come. The second part is where i can only see forlorn hope – because i don’t believe business will let the governments take action until it is too late to do any real ‘good’. Business just cannot conceive of the concept of reducing profit or size for future security/survival in any other area but wage costs/expenses. They just can’t let anyone ‘beat them so they will beat themselves and us into destruction. All civilisations and empires fall – and the US is showing the signs it’s time is coming to an end.
‘2) Can mankind adopt to changes in environment, which are occurring, and will always occur.’
Yes, again with a but: but not with the same numbers we are now faced with. There are simply too many of us for the health of the planet as it is now. ( and the planet is not going to change all that much and definitely is not going to increase in size/quality of soil for agriculture/ availability of essential ores science would need to feed and house and transport us all as we currently do.
Mankind HAS to change from it’s current ways – and fast voluntarily, or face massive disruption/death tolls from ‘natural’ disasters like famine and flood/cyclones/fires involuntarily.
I believe you and i are in complete agrement with your last sentences…
“My guess is that we will be able to adopt to any changes in the environment, but that we won’t act timely enough to prevent catastrophic loss of life.
For me the survival of the human race is not in question. The questions is how many lives will be lost before we take whatever actions are needed.’
Man ’should’ survive – but in what form and how many i truly have no idea.
And i know it ’sounds’ somewhat biblical – but i assure you my basis for these thoughts IS scientific and not religious.
<B
March 2, 2009 at 3:41 pm
edfromct
Love, looking at the foot+ of snow outside my window I sometimes think reading tea leaves is just as scientific as the other methods we use.
“i don’t believe business will let the governments take action until it is too late to do any real ‘good’. Business just cannot conceive of the concept of reducing profit or size for future security/survival in any other area but wage costs/expenses.”
I see more of the public buying “green” products, or at least those that claim to be.
In the US we are starting to make better use of wind farms and solar power. MIT and Georgia Tech in particular are developing much better batteries, the key to electric cars.
I agree that it is an open question as to whether we will act quickly enough to prevent significant loss of life and property. Of course back in 1960 most people were convinced we would have nuclear war and a “Mad Max” world by now.
March 4, 2009 at 2:37 am
lovewillbringustogether
I will agree there are two sides to most every ‘coin’ but it never ceases to amaze me just how business influences the governemtn and consumers into doing what might be good for profit but bad for us.
Most recent case in point?
Like the US ones, Australian consumers ( partly at the ‘forcing’ by our Government ( who at the time were Bush-supporting ‘non’ greenies) passed a bill requiring all households to switch from incandescent globes to low-power flourescent tube/globes by 2010 – the government even going so far as to providing support for consumers to switch and established a group to help us make the conversions) are slowly ‘going green as much as possible with power consumption in the home to help ‘reduce’ our country’s CO2 emissions.
So far so good, yes?
Then we find out that after the election of the supposedly MORE green party to power last year (Nov 2007 actually) and after a 12 moth long investigation and report by a specially prepared ‘panel’ of experts reporting to the new government They have announced a far less than expected emissions upper level ‘target’ for 2020 and if that were not ‘bad’ enough they propose to set a LOWER level target also?
end result? whatever we, the household consumers, ’save’ in emissions over a certain level (perhaps as low as 15% on the original target figure of 1990 levels) the big emitters of businesses in Australia will be allowed to ‘make back up again’ in their emissions!!! So some businesses may not have to cut anything at all! Some may even be allowed to increase emissions of CO2 if we have ’saved enough’ to reach the miniscule target ( currently 5% but subject to review if other countries all lift their targets to 20% or higher) just by cutting down on household use.
How obscene is that?
And this from a ‘Greener’ government that was elected in part as a backlash to the lack of serious emissions action by the previous government on a platform of being ’serious’ about the climate change issue?
By the by… a small correction to an earlier comment of mine… if Antarctic Ice ‘melts’ sea-level around the world won’t rise by 6 m ( 20 vertical feet)…
it will rise by 60 metres – 200 vertical feet! and i suspect my feet will get a bit wet and i live over 5 miles from the current coast ( on a hill)
P.S. electric cars won’t greatly reduce CO2 pollution – they merely re-locate the source of the emission from car exhausts and jet engines on planes to the power facility that supplies the extra power being used to re-charge any battery.
Hydrogen cells might have a more significant effect though? of course to get Hydrogen we need large amounts of electricity to separate it out of the water molecule. and the cricle continues?
<B