I thought that the global warming debate had reached a point where the fact of its happening was no longer in question, and the discussion from now on would be on how best to combat and cope with the threat.
Then Channel 4 broadcast a programme saying it was all a liberal conspiracy, and for a while the debate seemed to move backward again. Thankfully it seems that the programme has been widely recognised as a PR exercise in selective editing of selected evidence.
But an interesting idea that emerged in the debate surrounding the program was that liberals or environmentalists might invent a global climate threat. Or that they would have some agenda which would cause them to tend to distort the data towards an overly-alarmist viewpoint. When those with a vested interest in humanity's ongoing and increasing consumption of goods hold the view that global warming is not happening, or is not the result of human activity, it is only sensible to question their neutrality, whichever viewpoint one holds oneself. But, as Marcus Brigstocke said on Radio 4's The Now Show, liberals would invent a climate change fantasy in order to benefit themselves... how?!?!
I grew up with hose-pipe bans being the norm. Washing your car with a hose on your front drive in summer in British suburbia is morally akin to beating your children there. Your bright green front lawn shouts "I am evil!" Showering three times a day doesn't make you a Nice Clean Person: on the contrary, it makes you a Naughty Wasteful Person. The logic is as follows: The UK is experiencing drier and drier summers, and water is scarce. We ought to share what little we have around fairly. Basic ethics.
Or so I thought. Until I came here. Colombia has abundant natural resources -- whether it's flowers, fruit, coffee or coke that you want, Colombia's absurd fertility makes this country a leading producer of all four. There is no lack of water here. So therefore... there's no moral case against overusing water, right? I couldn't quite accept it. People using hosepipes to clean their front steps every day still seemed wrong. It still felt wrong to wash up under a running tap.
Now it is possible that I'm mistaken and there is a valid argument for not using too much water here either. But that isn't really what interested me. What I found interesting was that my feeling of doing wrong wasn't in fact as straightforwardly logical as I thought. It seemed to be based more on a sort of over-arching philosophy of life: that one should use only as little resources as one can, that one should leave the planet as much in the state that one found it as possible. Perhaps, even, that lots of long hot showers should be avoided simply because they are enjoyable! :o In short, that despite my logical arguments, in fact a kind of Puritan ethics drove my behaviour, not just a straighforward consideration for others.
And I realised that perhaps this is what those who claim that global warming is not in fact a result of human action, that cutting back on our consumptive activities will not help anything, were talking about. Facts are something that can be debated, and, hopefully, a consensus reached, based on evidence. Moral arguments, although subjective, are also universal. They can be presented in the global debate in clear terms: is it right, for instance, that the few who live in luxury should deny the millions living in gruelling poverty the means to build their way out of that poverty? I don't think there are many who would claim that it is. But once we get down into philosophy, the debate loses all universality. Is the path to true happiness through self-denial, frugality, and self-discipline? Or is it through comfort, pleasure and leisure? There are no answers to these questions. Philosophers have debated them for millenia. Religions have their opinions: modern consumer culture has another.
I think we might do well to be very careful in excluding ideology from the climate change debate, and concentrate solely on facts and morality. If it could be demonstrated that the flights of gap-year students going to build bridges in Ouagadougo do more environmental damage than the cars of those who drive to Bluewater every Sunday on shopping sprees, then we should agree to regulating the former rather than the latter. Even if I would personally prefer people to be building bridges than going shopping :).
Monday, March 26, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Ideals
I've been reading a few books on the history and current affairs of Colombia. Many of you probably already know the key words and phrases: narco-guerrilla kidnapping, state-backed paramilitary terror, mass displacement, human rights violations, etc. These are both the public image of Colombia, and, unfortunately, a part of its reality. The US has provided substantial fuel to this fire, substantial enough that it seems likely the fire would have burned out on any number of occasions in the last 60 years were it not for their contribution.
However, the fact which has impacted me most is the extreme discrepancy in wealth. It seems hard to argue against the case that the vast majority of the population are being kept in abject poverty by a super-rich elite when considering that:
The nominal minimum wage is $1920 a year. When I first found that out, I was appalled, wondering how on earth those people -- waitresses, cooks, cleaners etc -- could afford things like mp3-players, jeans, cellphones, burgers, etc, which all cost as much as or more than their US prices, and are apparently on sale everywhere. But it looks like those people are in something like the 70th percentile across national earnings -- in other words, reltively rich!
I have never really thought of the UK as much of an egalitarian society, but I realise now that it has always been one of my most basic assumptions that things should cost roughly the same everywhere. A beer is 3 quid. Minimum 2, and any more than 4 or 5 is an outrageous extortion, to be expected only in exclusive establishments full of people with more money than sense. The same goes for most basic commodities. Kwik-Save may be somewhat cheaper than Waitrose, but only by maybe 10% -- and in reality, all sectors of society shop in Tesco.
So I just really have trouble getting my head round the fact that in one neighbourhood food or drink or rent will cost 10 or 20 times what it might cost somewhere else. And that is only my limited experience, I'm sure the total range is much broader. It starts to make consumption look a bit odd. You could pay $2 for your lunch -- or go somewhere only marginally less shiny, pay $1, and give the difference to one of those "under a dollar a day" people, thus doubling their daily income!
The only egalitarian thing is transport which by its motionary nature doesn't have a per-neighbourhood cost. 50c for any bus-ride, 20c a kilometre for cab rides.
However of course the place one eats, drinks, rents, or whatever, or even whether one walks, catches a bus or taxi, or drives, is strictly dictated by one's position in the class heirarchy. As a foreigner I am basically excluded from its choking hold, which gives me some welcome freedom. Still, people realise that as a foreigner I must have at least enough money to afford a plane-ticket here, thus making me basically mega-rich compared to 80% of the population. That excludes me from going drinking in the poorest parts of town. It would probably be an irresistible invitation to robbery*. On the flip-side, the fact that I can't list my "family roots" on demand does exclude me from a certain top-level section of society: certain clubs, as well as having astronomical membership costs, are by invitation and reference only.
Becoming more aware of the extreme inequality in this country has made me more than a little uncomfortable going out in the middle-class establishments, and with the middle-class preoccupations of most of my social circle. It's disgusting, right, spending more than what 80% of the population earn in a day on dinner?
Well, that is what my European socialist heart tells me. But there are counter-arguments: if there is an elite who by protecting their own land and financial interests are ensuring that this situation continues, they are not the same people as this middle-class. Secondly, I can't (and nor can anyone) redress the extreme inequality by not spending that money, even if it was simply given to the poor. The roots of the problem are obviously far deeper. And thirdly, by spending that money, I/we are at least providing employment for some waiters, cleaners, etc, who otherwise might be begging or living in the street.
Those arguments, particularly the last, have always appeared to me as canards used by the nominally socially-responsible middle-class to justify their consumption. Surely the thing to aim for is a more equal society, where each of those cleaner has the opportunity to train as a lawyer or doctor, not just a few extra dollars for hours of backbreaking work with no exit in sight? But in a country with few spaces for movements for social change, and considerable risk for those attempting to do so, is it any surprise that the comfortably-off simply get on with living their lives?
The basic truth is that spending $15 on a steak in a posh North Bogota restaurant, while many people are starving or undernourished, is no worse than spending $15 on it in Norway (the most equal country by some measures) while children die of starvation in Africa. Somehow though, when the problem is outside the national border it becomes unnecessary to think about it too much. Can we blame middle-class Bogotanos for drawing their "national border" around the richer northern suburbs of Bogota, leaving them free to enjoy their steak, when in northern Europe many progressive and socially-conscious people are also enjoying their steaks, while humanitarian disasters all over the world continue to happen?
* Or am I myself becoming prey to class-based stereotyping and fear: "Anyone poorer than us must be out to steal from us! Lock the gates! Keep the peasants at bay!"
However, the fact which has impacted me most is the extreme discrepancy in wealth. It seems hard to argue against the case that the vast majority of the population are being kept in abject poverty by a super-rich elite when considering that:
- 14% of the population, 6 million people, are living on less than $1 a day
- the poorest 20% earn an average of $450 a year
- the richest 10% earn an average of $8,450 a year
- last week, I saw a chap driving along in a brand new Jaguar XJ, price with import duty perhaps $100,000
The nominal minimum wage is $1920 a year. When I first found that out, I was appalled, wondering how on earth those people -- waitresses, cooks, cleaners etc -- could afford things like mp3-players, jeans, cellphones, burgers, etc, which all cost as much as or more than their US prices, and are apparently on sale everywhere. But it looks like those people are in something like the 70th percentile across national earnings -- in other words, reltively rich!
I have never really thought of the UK as much of an egalitarian society, but I realise now that it has always been one of my most basic assumptions that things should cost roughly the same everywhere. A beer is 3 quid. Minimum 2, and any more than 4 or 5 is an outrageous extortion, to be expected only in exclusive establishments full of people with more money than sense. The same goes for most basic commodities. Kwik-Save may be somewhat cheaper than Waitrose, but only by maybe 10% -- and in reality, all sectors of society shop in Tesco.
So I just really have trouble getting my head round the fact that in one neighbourhood food or drink or rent will cost 10 or 20 times what it might cost somewhere else. And that is only my limited experience, I'm sure the total range is much broader. It starts to make consumption look a bit odd. You could pay $2 for your lunch -- or go somewhere only marginally less shiny, pay $1, and give the difference to one of those "under a dollar a day" people, thus doubling their daily income!
The only egalitarian thing is transport which by its motionary nature doesn't have a per-neighbourhood cost. 50c for any bus-ride, 20c a kilometre for cab rides.
However of course the place one eats, drinks, rents, or whatever, or even whether one walks, catches a bus or taxi, or drives, is strictly dictated by one's position in the class heirarchy. As a foreigner I am basically excluded from its choking hold, which gives me some welcome freedom. Still, people realise that as a foreigner I must have at least enough money to afford a plane-ticket here, thus making me basically mega-rich compared to 80% of the population. That excludes me from going drinking in the poorest parts of town. It would probably be an irresistible invitation to robbery*. On the flip-side, the fact that I can't list my "family roots" on demand does exclude me from a certain top-level section of society: certain clubs, as well as having astronomical membership costs, are by invitation and reference only.
Becoming more aware of the extreme inequality in this country has made me more than a little uncomfortable going out in the middle-class establishments, and with the middle-class preoccupations of most of my social circle. It's disgusting, right, spending more than what 80% of the population earn in a day on dinner?
Well, that is what my European socialist heart tells me. But there are counter-arguments: if there is an elite who by protecting their own land and financial interests are ensuring that this situation continues, they are not the same people as this middle-class. Secondly, I can't (and nor can anyone) redress the extreme inequality by not spending that money, even if it was simply given to the poor. The roots of the problem are obviously far deeper. And thirdly, by spending that money, I/we are at least providing employment for some waiters, cleaners, etc, who otherwise might be begging or living in the street.
Those arguments, particularly the last, have always appeared to me as canards used by the nominally socially-responsible middle-class to justify their consumption. Surely the thing to aim for is a more equal society, where each of those cleaner has the opportunity to train as a lawyer or doctor, not just a few extra dollars for hours of backbreaking work with no exit in sight? But in a country with few spaces for movements for social change, and considerable risk for those attempting to do so, is it any surprise that the comfortably-off simply get on with living their lives?
The basic truth is that spending $15 on a steak in a posh North Bogota restaurant, while many people are starving or undernourished, is no worse than spending $15 on it in Norway (the most equal country by some measures) while children die of starvation in Africa. Somehow though, when the problem is outside the national border it becomes unnecessary to think about it too much. Can we blame middle-class Bogotanos for drawing their "national border" around the richer northern suburbs of Bogota, leaving them free to enjoy their steak, when in northern Europe many progressive and socially-conscious people are also enjoying their steaks, while humanitarian disasters all over the world continue to happen?
Source for income figures: UNDP
* Or am I myself becoming prey to class-based stereotyping and fear: "Anyone poorer than us must be out to steal from us! Lock the gates! Keep the peasants at bay!"
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Eclipsed
Picture the scene. It is the last Friday of the month: payday. The night when men go out and drink their paychecks before their wives can get a hold of it. Also the night when thieves are at large: what better time to rob than when a man is drunk, and carrying near on a month's earnings in his back pocket?
At 11pm a man is rushed into the hospital emergency room: he has bullet wounds to his shoulder and is covered in blood. Accompanying him, his son, also wounded, bleeding from the hand and arm. From the garbled reports of the two men, it appears that they had been drinking in a cigarreria on Trece and 45, not a notably pleasant barrio, when thieves burst in, firing several shots, demanding money from the men and the cashier. It appeared that giving up their wallets was not enough, as the man and his son were shot anyway.
The doctors quickly assess the situation. Although it appears at first that the man has head injuries, they quickly establish that his situation is not critical. The son's hand is in bad shape, but his injuries aren't life-threatening either.
Then, another man rushes into the room, carrying his son over his shoulder. This man, 25, is in very bad shape. Doctor's decide that his case must take priority and immediately begin to attend to him. However, the other young man is now becoming very agitated, pointing at the new entrants and shouting, "Ladrones! They tried to kill my father!". Police are called. It appears that during the shooting and robbery attempt, one of the thieves mistakenly shot one of their own: the young man currently bleeding to death in the emergency room. The moral dilemma is clear, but his case is more critical so the doctors naturally prioritise him. His brother arrives. The brother is shouting at them, "Help him! Please help him!". The other young man is shouting, "Let him die, why should you help him, he is a murderer!" Despite all that the doctors can do, his injuries are too serious. After half an hour of emergency surgery, there is nothing more to be done. He is dead. His brother rushes to his side, tears flooding from his eyes. "Please don't die hermano," he keeps repeating. The other young man has fallen silent. The police wait outside.
This scene was not broadcast on an overdramatic telenovela on Friday night. No, in fact it happened on Friday night during Panda's turno (24-hour shifts) at University. She watched that young man die.
Studying Medicine isn't much like studying Computer Science. I think the most dramatic event in my undergraduate studies was probably discovering the power of currying in functional programming. Not entirely comparable. I think medical students get more Reality in one week than the average programmer gets in their whole life. I hope I don't seem ghoulish by reporting this particular event. Naturaly, every week has similar events. Some of the stories I hear make my hair stand on end. I just thought I'd share one with you.
At 11pm a man is rushed into the hospital emergency room: he has bullet wounds to his shoulder and is covered in blood. Accompanying him, his son, also wounded, bleeding from the hand and arm. From the garbled reports of the two men, it appears that they had been drinking in a cigarreria on Trece and 45, not a notably pleasant barrio, when thieves burst in, firing several shots, demanding money from the men and the cashier. It appeared that giving up their wallets was not enough, as the man and his son were shot anyway.
The doctors quickly assess the situation. Although it appears at first that the man has head injuries, they quickly establish that his situation is not critical. The son's hand is in bad shape, but his injuries aren't life-threatening either.
Then, another man rushes into the room, carrying his son over his shoulder. This man, 25, is in very bad shape. Doctor's decide that his case must take priority and immediately begin to attend to him. However, the other young man is now becoming very agitated, pointing at the new entrants and shouting, "Ladrones! They tried to kill my father!". Police are called. It appears that during the shooting and robbery attempt, one of the thieves mistakenly shot one of their own: the young man currently bleeding to death in the emergency room. The moral dilemma is clear, but his case is more critical so the doctors naturally prioritise him. His brother arrives. The brother is shouting at them, "Help him! Please help him!". The other young man is shouting, "Let him die, why should you help him, he is a murderer!" Despite all that the doctors can do, his injuries are too serious. After half an hour of emergency surgery, there is nothing more to be done. He is dead. His brother rushes to his side, tears flooding from his eyes. "Please don't die hermano," he keeps repeating. The other young man has fallen silent. The police wait outside.
This scene was not broadcast on an overdramatic telenovela on Friday night. No, in fact it happened on Friday night during Panda's turno (24-hour shifts) at University. She watched that young man die.
Studying Medicine isn't much like studying Computer Science. I think the most dramatic event in my undergraduate studies was probably discovering the power of currying in functional programming. Not entirely comparable. I think medical students get more Reality in one week than the average programmer gets in their whole life. I hope I don't seem ghoulish by reporting this particular event. Naturaly, every week has similar events. Some of the stories I hear make my hair stand on end. I just thought I'd share one with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
