Sunday, March 30, 2014

India: Dynamic Overpopulation



­India (as of a 2012 census) has an estimated billion people within its 25 states.  350 million of those people survive on less than 1 US dollar per day.  Even after gaining it’s independency over 50 years ago, the majority of the Indian population is illiterate, half is malnourished, lacks sanitation and access to clean water. (overpopulation.org) But because India has 19 major languages, six religious subdivisions and over 100 dialects, it is difficult to speak of India as a problem altogether.

The reason for choosing India for this particular discussion is due to the fact that India is considered a powerful regional, of not a world power. India has an extensive military, has tested nuclear weapons, has sophisticated medicine practices, has some of the world boldest scientists, and is fully capable of sufficiently providing for the entirety of its population with what is grown on it’s lands.

So why such a drastic contrast? Why is India, a powerhouse of science, technology and economic stronghold, lacks an appropriate population policy?

A million reasons, actually.


For one, the primary religious subdivision in India is Hindu, which seeks to preserve sacred lands, waters and animals. Because of the power that the caste system illustrates, the major bodies of water within the confines of India are infused with ashes, dirty clothes, and bodies—all results of poor moral behavior, the lack of hygienic institutions and careless burial grounds.  The Ganga River in India was the main provider of water, transportation and thus, employment 30-40 years ago. Today, the sanitation levels are far below safe, and is the cause of known diseases in rural areas.  The stronghold of India’s religions continues to impoverish the country.


Another tie is India’s ignorance of contraceptives.  Due to its long, strict traditions of arranged marriages, there are pressures in breeding a son, rather than a daughter to offer for marriage. Most couples are even aborting female fetuses, which skews the sex ratio.  Within the recent years, in more urban cities, the notion is almost absent, but has thus resulted in a population explosion of a young demographic. All these eager workers are leaving rural life and traveling to big cities to acquire a job (IT, probably). In New Delhi, approx. 15 million young people sleep on the streets.  Those who get tired of a not being able to find work recklessly riot and drive away tourism in the nations capitol.

Another reason is food inflation.  India’s farmers are facing falling water levels, over stimulated lands and climate change. The majority of support for farming families depends on the welfare from the women in the family, further bridging the gap of poor families. Although women are encouraged to remain in school and learn about appropriate family planning, instead they are forced to help out mom and pops on the farm. 


On top of this, India’s corrupt bureaucracy often overlooks the need for child hunger.  Malnutrition persists in rural areas, raising underweight mother who are then expected to bear and feed their young.  Child marriages are the most promising, guaranteeing a birth from a barely fertile womb. 

So many factors create a population taboo. Riots, activists, rebels—India is changing in the hand of a young demographic, smart enough to want better, but too weak to appeal to the government. 

If you guys are interested, below is a link to one of my favorite documentaries. It’s a light-hearted look on the people of India, how they live and transpire in barely suitable conditions.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Population and Scarcity: A Model of the Inevitable Dystopia

In Annika’s Ericksen’s presentation of the Children, Livestock, and Wealth in Niger, an ongoing dilemma in similar, poverty-stricken countries; the growth of population and the lack of resources to provide prove to be the causes for famine, disease and low mortality. 

 The more exposure that poor countries receive, the lifestyle dictated by scrambling funds and rationing food—constantly stuns me. And although moral values have now been resourced by the material in this class, I still wonder, in awe, how people can ignore the causalities of these situations. When poverty dominates the majority of the world, the effects are towering—they inevitably spread and affect everyone. It’s a slippery slope of the fragile nature of the human species.

 Let me provide a daunting example, and correlate the happenings to Robbins’ Population and Scarcity.

 The biggest, and arguably the worst pandemic to hit the human species was the Bubonic Plague, “The Black Death” which wiped nearly 30-60% of the world’s population in a matter of several years. Under the microscope, this disease was caused by a rat flea that infected the lymphatic system, with further outbreaks it spread to the lungs and was transferred through the exposure of a simple cough. Now initially, the bacteria was practically harmless—it lived in the digestive tract of street animals. 

 So how did such a tame disease, a disease that had once taken several lives in Justinian’s reign and thus suppressed, conquer Europe?

In the centuries prior to the outbreak, population was on an exponential incline. The Middle Ages had settled, religion was enforced, and the kings were as strong as ever. New technologies, inventions and opportunities for empire expansion clearly separated the nobles from the poor—by drastic standards. The majority of men saw their livelihood in farming and livestock. Thus, families began to grow—children were bred to benefit the farm and look after their overworked parents. 

As times began to get tougher with the hostile nature of rulers, large families were forced on the street to beg, live in dumps and fight for their keep. When the outbreak happened, it affected the majority of the poor population. That was the group of people who provided food for others, roamed every corner in the city and served in higher-class homes. With the immense transmission of the virus, the nobles were thus affected. People at the Opera picked up the virus by the cleaning crew an hour prior, priests were infected from showing up at a local sermon, food and meat also caused infection.

 The virus does not care for the social class. The multitude of people in one area—interlinked with one another was the major cause of the fire like spread. 

 How is this any different from what is growing today? Granted we have improved technologies and more communication—places like Niger are too similar. Like Robbin’s publication suggests, scarcity will always prevail within a growing generation. There is simply never enough resource, and those who have it, save for their kin.

 It is imperative to consider countries on the brink of destruction by famine and the fragile nature of human affliction. The causalities of a possible infection can affect the rest of the world. If your moral character is not prominent enough to urge you to help others in need, then maybe the scare of self preservation does the job.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Term Paper Topic: Capitalism and the Culture of Consumption

Blurb:
Capitalism can be considered a political ideology where the market economy is supported by the success of private companies. These companies often collect and keep the majority of the revenue within the immediate benefactors and stockholders, leaving little for the cost of production.

At one point, capitalism was the answer to provide for a booming economic stronghold—a country on the frontline of the industrial revolution.

Today, capitalism has transformed America into a culture of consumption. Presumption of success is measured in material goods—their biggest form of advertisement is jealousy. Every citizen is a targeted consumer, their every opportune consumption met. 

America was born from slavery, and that has never left.

Overview:
My paper topic will focus on the role of a capitalist ideology and how it resulted into a culture of consumption of individuals who cannot afford it. The paper will discuss the role of advertising and how far the message hits—linking needs and values to material goods. I will observe the role of developing countries for our own success and the exploitation of those lands.

Keywords:


- Capital
- Exploitation
- Private
- Revenue
- Market
- Advertising
- Dependency
- Consumer
- Value
- Material
- Slavery
- Consumer
- Social Construction
- Culture
- Laborer
- Producer



Primary Interrelationships:


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Progress-Good-Regress-Evil



“Beginning to reason is like stepping onto an escalator that leads upward and out of sight. Once we take the first step, the distance to be traveled is independent of our will and we cannot know in advance where we shall end.”
-Peter Singer


When considering the moral applications of the issues with famine versus animal liberation, Singer speaks about the principle of ethics in two distinct interests.


In Animal liberation, the author compares the distinction of animal versus human rights on the premise of the ability to suffer. Both humans and non-human animals have the capacity to suffer, the only distinctions being the amount due to physical and mental factors. As he pointed out in the reading, a blow to a baby would cause a greater level of suffering as opposed to a blow to a horse that has thicker skin and therefor feels less impact. In the same manner, an animal held captive might show a lower level of suffrage than a person in the same position who can understand his situation based on mental abilities.

But are either justified? You cannot force a blow to a baby and caging a human is immoral and torturous. So then does a horse with a thicker skin deserve to take the hit because it can, or can an animal be caged because it doesn’t understand the possibility of the other?

Singer argues that on the issue of animal liberation, a moral individual obviously cannot apply the same framework of natural rights for humans to animals—too many distinctions and biological differences wont allow it. But in order to be ethical, the individual has to consider the utilitarian idea of the “greatest good” – a principle that aims to impact the majority in a positive way. This is the only measure of moral behavior. 




On the subject of famine in areas like Bangladesh, Singer claims that the primary issue is the greed of affluent individuals, whose moral character falls short in providing for the poor. The author scolds the wealthy individual’s ethical behavior by questioning the failure to provide; he expects the act to be a basic understanding of a moral character. In addition, the author claims that distance cannot be used as an excuse for support; even if you were to never have met the person you’re helping—the action is just.
The wealth we earn to spoil ourselves can be used to save someone from starvation and sickness. It is an obligation we have to follow; to protect those like us whom we share our lifetime with.

There is duty and there is charity. Helping the poor is our duty. 




When asked to compare the two positions, I cannot help but to agree with both—fully. Sure, the criticism can be that “well if animals are proven to be treated differently, people (given the circumstances) can be as well. I fail to see any sort of disposition with these arguments, given their unquestionable logic and appropriateness for the argument.

But if I may add, I admire people like Singer who dedicate their education, intelligence and social power to promote things like animal liberation and famine aid. Throwing red paint on fur, prancing around naked--extremists help no one. They only cloud the judgement of people who can do something about it. Someone more ignorant can group extremists and Singer in one category because of the same objective, but probably do so because of more media attention to extremists and not enough to teachers. 

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Populist Discourse


Deforestation.
Desertification.
Biodiversity Utilization.
Climate change.

These are the topics of environmental issues that surround the modern day ecological concern, as addressed in Adger et Al’s “Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses.”



Populist discourse.

Is probably the most abused, politically empirical system of worthless opinions compiled into a platform of nonsense.

The perfect example of that political jargon is Cezar Chavez’ closing speech of his ’06 campaign.

So what are some characteristics of a largely populist debate?

-There is always an evil, like big brother or the wealthy elite. There has to be a small group of someones that the larger group can blame.

-It touches on national leaders or religious subdivisions, reaching to a higher, stronger—more well known being or power.

-There are only two sides to each situation: the perfect outcome and the absolute disaster. There is no median, no gray areas- just black and white.

-And it is largely democratic- wanting to benefit the majority versus the minority but never having an exact recipe for the desired outcome.

In fact, the majority of debates that contain political stimulation rely on methods such as populist discourse in order to gain favor from the public.

In reference to the environmental issues stated earlier, a populist discourse is the absolute worst point of view to take onto the matter.

Populists create victims of average farmers and land owners. And although arguably true, there is no benefit in categorically grouping those who make money and those who don’t. farmers, in our economy simply cant be given more. A capitalist economy thrives on the backs of the workingmen. And although morally the argument is questionable, that’s just the way things are. Populist discourse creates two VERY separate standings: the poor and the rich,

Another downfall is the cosmic proportion of those affected. Deforestation affects EVERYONE. Yes, it may be that somehow in a very small but significant way, myself or you are affected by the deforestation of virgin lands. It would be ideal if EVERYONE who was affected pitched in for change, but the reality is that only a number are affected and the problem cannot be rooted to a certain group if it effects everyone.


The worst cause of a populist discourse is that the overworked farmer becomes the targeted audience, he becomes the noble man of the land. Instead of asking the rich for tributary help, populists command that the farmer must embody his power as a common individual and strive with his brothers and implicitly get richer.