External Costs

Unfortunately, the American economic system doesn’t value nature. Because it is capitalistic, material value is only considered, and it is rated by cost. Since it is so hard to determine the value of nature, it has been rendered valueless, which is certainly not the same is priceless. Many have tried to figure out what the value of nature would be.

Many things must be taken into account—for example, a tree would not just be the cost of its wood, but all the creatures it affects and the environment it affects have to be considered. I created an equation that I think includes all the important aspects of a tree.

A tree is made of partially water and also wood. Its roots prevent soil erosion and it takes carbon dioxide out of the air, which protects us from global warming. It also puts oxygen into the atmosphere, which helps us breathe. It is also the home to many creatures.

So, the value of a tree would be the value of the water it holds (H2O) + the value of the land it protects (L) + how much it would cost to fix soil erosion (S) + the value of how much oxygen it puts into the atmosphere (O2) + the value of each creature that depends on it (C). So, Tree (T) = H2O + L + S + CO2 + O2 + C.
But, wait! We must figure out the value of each creature that a tree houses. Creature (C) = value of the amount of land it saves from overpopulation of its prey (L) + value of energy it produces (P) + value of each creature it keeps alive by being its prey (C).

Therefore, C = L + P + C; therefore C is infinite; therefore the value of a tree is infinite. I’m not even going into how valuable land is, because of how many creatures it keeps alive.

It is impossible to accurately determine the value of a tree, or any life for that matter. In this economy, maybe for now, it is important to at least value nature at something. But it should be pretty damn expensive.

An Argument I've Been Making for Years

This is a Sarah McLachlan music video, but it's so much more. It demonstrates how disgustingly consumeristic and gluttonous our society is.


World On Fire

Hearts are worn in these dark ages
You're not alone in this story's pages
The light has fallen amongst the living and the dying
And I'll try to hold it in, yeah I'll try to hold it in

[Chorus]
The world's on fire and
It's more than I can handle
I'll tap into the water
Try and bring my share
I try to bring more
More than I can handle
Bring it to the table
Bring what I am able

I watch the heavens but I find no calling
Something I can do to change what's coming
Stay close to me while the sky is falling
Don't wanna be left alone, don't wanna be alone

[Chorus]

Hearts break, hearts mend
Love still hurts
Visions clash, planes crash
Still there's talk of
Saving souls, still the cold
Is closing in on us

We part the veil on our killer sun
Stray from the straight line on this short run
The more we take, the less we become
The fortune of one man means less for some

[Chorus X2]

Feminism and Anti-Monogamy

I have had the unwanted privilege of watching the polyamory* movement grow before my very eyes, in friends, and in movements. It has become so strong that it helps define movements. I am an anarcha-feminist, so I was very disappointed to see an article on the anarcha-feminist community about "saying no" to monogamy, but none about being a strong, monogamous female. There is a big difference between being radical and denouncing something because of its inherent flaws, and being pseudo-radical and denouncing something because it is the status quo, and therefore must have been created by patriarchal society.

There are two key parts to this question:

1) Monogamous relationships and
2) Marriage, as defined by Western society.

The first is perfectly natural, and can be found in human beings and other animals, including some mammals. It is not about ownership, or power struggles. It is about finding a reflection of yourself, a soulmate, and for some people there is only one. I have the right to choose to be monogamous, just as I have the right to choose anything else as an individual woman.

The second is created by a patriarchal society, and possibly has an original purpose of tying the woman to the man, so he is the sole owner of her children. But that's how it is defined in Western culture, not how it has to be. My parents' marriage is incredibly egalitarian; my mother did not take on my father's name, and I have both of their names. They share in the work, although my father does cook more, because he enjoys it. My mother has a private practice, my father is a teacher. They are both strong feminists who don't shave :)

I understand that being a minority in this culture, polyamorists feel anger toward the status quo, just as homosexuals may feel anger towards heterosexuals, blacks towards whites, and so on. But that does not mean that monogamy is unnatural, just like heterosexuality isn't unnatural, and whites aren't evil. (This is a simplification; I am very aware of homophobia and racism). Just like striking out toward the oppressor isn't necessarily striking out toward all whites, or all heterosexuals, you don't denounce monogamy as a whole because a few monogamists sneer at polyamory.

Moreover, claims that monogamy has been proven to be destructive and not work, are completely unfounded, considering that I have yet to find a stable polyamorous relationship. This in no way suggests that polyamory is inherently unstable; it merely points out that humans have relationships, some of which do not go smoothly. If you have trouble in relationships, be it power dynamics, insecurities, jealousy, etc., those problems will show up in a monogamous or non-monogamous relationship. Just like it is irrational to seek a lesbian relationship because you have trouble with men (even though you're attracted to them), you cannot seek polyamorous relationships just because you suck at monogamous ones. In my opinion, you must truly feel in your heart that you will be happier seeing more than one person. Some people become polyamorous because of fear of commitment. They say that humans are naturally sexual, loving creatures and therefore need more than one partner. This is bullshit. If Sally says humans are naturally non-monogamous, then it's because Sally is non-monogamous, and is confusing herself with the entire human race.

People like to blame the entire human race for their own natures. Some of the most angry, bloodthirsty people I know say that violence is human nature. Yet it is their nature that they're talking about. Humans are naturally:

Adaptive
Social
Plastic (flexible)

That is true human nature.

I will end with four points, two of which I have made before:

Humans are naturally peaceful.
Humans are naturally violent.
Humans are naturally monogamous.
Humans are naturally polyamorous.

The "human nature" argument gets nowhere past me!


*Polyamory is a descriptive term (defined by contrast with monogamy) for the practice of being open to more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with full knowledge and consent by everyone involved. (Wikipedia)

Dear Misguided People of the World:

The theory of global warming is a conspiracy. Why, you might ask, would the greatest scientists in the world join up with environmentalists to create such a huge hoax? The reasons are multifaceted:

1) To move our dependence from oil and coal on to more sustainable resources

2) To reduce pollution, and the medical problems that result from it

3) To get humans, as a whole, to understand and respect our relationship to the rest of the environment

Now that you see the horrible, self-interested reasons that the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world (AKA scientists and environmentalists) have for creating the myth of climate change, you understand why it makes sense that it is a conspiracy. Come join caring right-wing politicians and the humble petroleum industry in putting an end to the greatest joke in human history.

Because our only agenda is to keep the truth alive.

Sincerely,

ENRON
Exxon Mobile
Saddam Hussein
George W. Bush

Note: this generalization does not cover all economists, but still a large majority

The world today has become so detached, so "specialized," that human beings think we can categorize our knowledge into bits and pieces and not see connections between different disciplines. Environmentalists are aware of how much we separate ourselves from the non-human environment. But how can we connect with nature when we can't even connect with each other? We all live in a vacuum. Nothing one person does could possibly affect another human being.

Take economics, for example. Just like psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists, economists believe that there exists within their field empirical facts, scientific evidence, the "real world". But economics is a "soft science"--it has no empirical facts. And it is a social science--it relates directly to the human world, human interactions, and human relationships. People who use PoliSci and economics as their dogma may see otherwise. "Politics is about interactions between states and other things related to the government," and "economics is about goods and services, trade and policy."

But what are governments and states made up of? Human beings. What is the purpose of policy? To influence and affect human beings (usually to improve their livelihood, or at least it's supposed to be). Economics is a human invention; purely psychological. We invented money, trade, the ideas of inflation and Gross Domestic Product. A country's economy will grow or have negative growth partly because of whether or not investors (people or organizations of people) have faith in them.

This is why economists must constantly keep in mind how each theory, perspective, and policy implemented affects people. To call someone a "bleeding-heart liberal" for being concerned not just about how an economy is perceived to grow, but also how people are being affected by that economy, is grossly short-sighted. To say that economists (or people in an economics class) must not talk about people, but only about policy, is a contradiction. What is the purpose of policy? To help or influence a government or governing body. And what is the purpose of influencing a government? To help or influence the people ruled by that government.

Why was Adam Smith concerned about bringing Great Britain out of feudalism, into a system where supposedly anyone could make money? To get rid of slavery and the serfdom, so that people could be free to influence their own lives. Why was Karl Marx concerned about labor conditions? Because of how the people were treated. I could go on and on.

To argue that the purpose of economics is not to affect the people, but to affect the growth of a country, is ridiculously abstract. It turns into the country helping its economy for the country's sake, and then there is no purpose. For, what is the purpose of a country if not for people?

"The Long Run"

Economists claim not to be myopic, but to look into the future when they make their decisions. If privatizing the water supply of the city of Cochabomba, Bolivia, destroyed people's lives and demanded a quarter to a half of their monthly income, well, the point isn't so much how those people were affected "then." The point is, privatization would help Bolivia's economy "in the long run," maybe years from that point (when half the residents of Cochabomba are dead), and economic growth always helps the people didn't you know? It's automatic. The wealth of a country is never just owned by the already wealthy. No, there's a Reaganomic "trickle-down effect" as you can see worked so well in Bolivia before, during the privatization of other industries. Or in the former Soviet Union. Just ask anyone who lives in Serbia or the Czech Republic. They'll tell you, "I'm so financially well-off now; gosh I'm happy. The health care here is much better now and there are less poor people on the streets." While no one likes living in a pseudo-tyrannical dictatorship, the former USSR did sacrifice a lot to become a capitalistic "democracy." The cost-benefit analysis doesn't have as obvious an outcome as one might presume. And the rabid anti-communism is now just reminiscent of the McCarthy Era.

Strangely enough, these "far-sighted" economists have trouble getting other long-term effects of policy into their heads: environmental effects, human well-being. Petroleum is an unsustainable resource; anyone with half a brain will admit that. But ask an economist why it's a good idea to keep our dependence on oil without investing much further into sustainable energy resources? "Well, oil's not gonna run out for a long time." "Oh, we're investing enough into sustainable resources, so that by the time a world oil crisis hits, we'll have enough alternative energy sources to sustain us." The former comment reveals true hypocrisy if that economist believes the "in the long run" theories. And there is no way in hell an economist can say the latter if they've actually checked current trends and economic predictions. But no, they're still not short-sighted or anything.

I'd say these economists have what I like to call "selective myopia." You look into the future only if it serves your own interests. And boy, do economists care about self-interest! After all, there is no such thing as true altruism, is there?

The truth is, while examining policy, you have to keep your head on straight. Don't let it get abstract enough that it's just a bunch of numbers to you, and there is no humanity involved.

If all scientists were like economists, they wouldn't even bother with the "inefficiencies" of animal-testing. They'd go straight to experimenting on humans.

The Great Progressive Divide

Listen as the wind blows, from across the great progressive divide....
Sarah McLachlan (with a little tweaking)

It is hard for people and organizations alike to find some common ground; an idea they can work together on--even when those people and organizations have relatively similar perspectives. The "anarchists" scoff at socialists, because the socialists believe in giving the government more economic regulation "control", and the socialists scoff at the "anarchists", because in their view, the "anarchist" model tends to have little to no structure.

But they are both aiming for the same end result, and they have very similar beliefs as to what "social justice" is--social freedom without enforced "morals" (i.e. abortion or gay marriage bans), and a classless system that does not have any unchecked powers or authorities. The end goal of socialism is anarchism! Their means to those ends are just different.

The "Progressive Movement", as I like to call it, is so busy tearing itself apart, arguing over petty differences, that it cannot hold itself together to be strong enough to fight against anything but itself. Conservative Christians from the middle all the way to the far right of the political spectrum come together for the common causes of abolishing abortion, criminalizing gays, making prayer in the classroom mandatory, and forcing creationism into biology classrooms. Meanwhile, we "progressives" spit acid and labels at each other, such as "tree-huggers," "feminazis," and "New-Age hippies", thus not earning our title of "progressive".

Governments that seek more power and the corporations that fund them work together, out of greed, despite petty differences, to gain the highest profits. Why can't we work together, out of altruism, and sort out our petty differences? Is greed really a stronger motivator?

A perfect example of the divide in progressive politics is environmentalism and class.

Once Again: Environmentalism is a Class Issue

The environmentalist movement tends to be composed mainly of middle-class people who do not fully understand the plight and mindset of a blue-collar worker. In fact, there are many environmentalists who are so embarrassed by this, that they do not consider themselves part of the environmentalist movement--instead, they call themselves part of the "environmental justice" movement. This split within the environmental movement is very sad.

When environmentalists demand that people stop logging old-growth tress, but then fail to offer an alternative to the working-class lumberjacks, that is the environmentalist movement. When an organization preserves land in the Amazon rainforest and kicks the native people off that land, that's the environmentalist movement. On the other hand, when environmental lobbyists got together with the steelworkers union to sue the CEO of a steel factory (because of his dessomation of the environment, and because of poor labor conditions), that was the environmental justice movement.

Environmentalists, above everyone else, are supposed to understand how everything and everyone is interconnected to everything and everyone else. Therefore, we cannot dismiss the consequences of "environmental protection" when the consequences fall on human beings, because part of environmental protection is helping those human beings.

Why is Environmentalism a Class Issue?

When you are working two to three full-time jobs to pay for food for your children, the health of the environment is the last thing that's on your mind. Some environmentalists may say that this is selfish behavior, and "can't that working-class person see that we are all connected to the earth, and therefore, environmental health means his/her own health?" The simple, and quite obvious answer, is no. And why should you, when you have been offered no environmentally sustainable alternative to your job as a lumberjack, or buying clothes at Wal-Mart, or buying the cheapest car you can (regardless of how much gas it guzzles)? Can I really expect you to buy organic food and cotton and fair-trade coffe, when I know full well how much that shit costs? Can I expect you to become an activist with me when you barely have time to sleep?

That is another thing that environmentalists, of all people, should understand: the human survival instinct. Regardless of how inefficient or impractical a solution is in the long run, as long as it gets food on your table, you'll take it.

Of course, another problem in this country is that people in general are poorly-educated about various issues and current events, including environmental issues. We've been brainwashed to put our "economy" ahead of the environment, creating a completely false dichotomy. Like everyone else, on top of the above mentioned problems, the lower-classes generally have virtually no education regarding environmental issues.

The other problem is that the lower classes are the first ones affected by our destructive behavior toward the environment. a) Where do nuclear power plants and chemical plants and factories set up shop, where they can dump all their toxic chemicals into the neighbor's lawn? b) Which countries are having the worst environmental records (due to the outsourcing of jobs and environmental regulations)? c) Who wasn't able to escape the worst destruction of hurricane Katrina, and d) why were the hurrican's effects so severe? The answer, in case you didn't figure it out, is a) poor neighborhoods; b) the poorest countries; c) the poor and d) the city was too poor (and so was the infrastructure). Seeing a pattern?

An experiment for vegetarians and organic-product buyers (although I have to figure out the right numbers): Go on a food-and-grocery budget of about $50 (?)/month, and see how long it takes you--not only to stop buying organic food--but to start buying meat. Meat is cheap, and it fills you up. Regardless of your more abstract philosophies, when you're not sure when your next meal is, all your long-term goals and ideals go out the window, and only your short-term goals remain. This is one of the ways that the cycles of social and environmental injustice continue: keep enough of the people desperate enough, and they won't look at, let alone care about, ecological destruction, even if it directly effects them.

However, that is slowly beginning to change. The environmental justice movement sprung out of the early 1990s as an anti-toxics revolution: people from poor areas were fed up with how they were being treated. For more information on environmental justice, please visit the website Environmental Justice Resources on the World Wide Web

For the Love of Common Sense

I wrote this letter in response to an article entitled, Energy: A Potent Political Weapon, written (guess where?) on the Fox News website. You guessed right, didn't you? And you're saying right now, "Why did she bother writing to this man?" Well, my answer will be Ad Hominem: "You're stupid! Leave me alone." See? Now you know why, and you know I'm right.

Dear Mr. Steven Milloy:

Understand that I don't usually write to reporters; in fact, I believe this is my first time. I would like to point out a couple flaws in your article, that stood out to me.

1) In your article, "Energy, A Potent Political Weapon", you said, "Environmentalists are doing everything in their power to ensure that whatever energy is available will be more expensive."
As a very active environmentalist who speaks to other environmentalists on a day-to-day basis, I can assure you this isn't true.

That argument is called an Ad Hominem fallacy:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Here is Person A's defense: The purpose of environmentalism is to protect the environment, and make sure that humans aren't negatively affected by the environment. We do not try to undermine attempts to boost our economy, especially when it comes to energy resources, since they are vital to the entire global economy. If we tried to undermine attempts to access energy and succeeded, the global economy would be in ruins.

This is exactly why, instead of undermining attempts to find energy resources, we offer scientifically-proven, very effective energy resources that would provide us with a lot of the energy we usually extract from fossil fuels. I'm sure you've heard of them; they're called alternative energy sources: wind power, solar power, and hydroelectric power are the most popular. As an environmentalist, I would like to show people that we have the opportunity to invest in some extremely reliable, economically, and environmentally sustainable energy sources. This would help us move from our dependency on petroleum, which is "unsustainable". This means that, regardless of when (certainly within the next century), we will hit a peak in oil extraction efficiency, and prices will rise exponentially from then on. Alternative energy sources don't have this problem. Therefore, if we were dependent on them, we would not have to worry about a sudden economic depression when oil extraction becomes next to impossible. This is not to say, "stop extracting oil now!" This is a gradual concept, to wean us off our dependency on an economically unsustainable resource. Therefore, we wouldn't have to pay higher prices for natural gas, as you said in your article, because there would be other energy sources available. (Yes, that was long-winded, I know.)

2) When you speak of the ANWR oil and gas drilling, you have to be willing to do a cost-benefit analysis. The economically recoverable oil in ANWR is about 152 days of supply. That's less than half a year's supply of oil. Drilling in that part of the Refuge would disrupt the balance of a very fragile ecosystem. Before you come to any conclusions, I suggest you learn exactly what an ecosystem is and how interconnected it is with each species it houses. Drilling will likely put the caribou species on the endangered species list. You may not share the same sentiments as I about deer. That's fine. How about people? The two large herds of caribou in ANWR are major food sources for the Gwich'in Indians in that area. They have lived off the caribou for the past 12,000 years, and are strongly opposed to drilling. To learn about more reasons that drilling in ANWR is a terrible idea, contact Senate Republicans, Lincoln Chafee (RI) and Mike DeWine (OH), and ask them why they voted against the drilling.

3) I will not go into the large amounts of evidence that global warming not only exists, but is exacerbated by humans. But I do suggest that, before you read more about how climate change is "junk science", you read this one pdf article, or you can go to the website and get it there.

Thank you very much for reading through this long email. I hope you at least found it interesting.

Sincerely,

Sitakali (I actually used my real name here)

Evidence that the Bush Administration is Suppressing Science

This is from the Audibon magazine, May-June 2005

The Big Chill

Last February, 62 distinguished scientists, 20 Nobel laureates among them, charged the Bush administration with "manipulation of the process through wich science enters into its decisions." To discover the extent of the abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists teamed up with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility to survey 1,600 scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nearly 30 percent responded, despite agency directives not to. They spoke of a "climate of fear" at the USFWS--fear of the loss of jobs or of program funding. At a subsequent Congressional hearing, Representative Norman Dicks (D-WA) excoriated departed USFWS director Steve WIlliams: "You are letting political appointees beat up on biologists, so they are intimidated and can't dod their job for habitat and species." Nine of 10 managers cited cases where political appointees and members of Congress injected themselves into scientific determinations. Half knew of cases in which commercial interests caused the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions.

Many called for the removal of Julia MacDonald, an Interior Department appointee who recently claimed that historical records of millions of sage grouse were "simply a fairy tale" and that the birds did not depend on sagebrush for survival. "They will eat other stuff if it is available," she said. As a result, this endangered bird has been denied protection under the Endangered Species Act, while its habitat continues to be destroyed by commercial interests--gas drilling, mining, and development. Click here for the full report.

Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scientists

Scientific Findings:
Commercial Interference....56%
Interior Department interference....70%

Resources and Morale:
Insufficient Resources....92%
Inaddequate Funding...85%

Effect on Scientific Candor:
Fear of Retaliation....42%
Ordered to Mislead Public....19%

It's Hard to be a Pacifist with So Many Stupid People in this World

California Senator Barbara Boxer (the only one who stood up for the voting rights of millions of Ohioans whose votes weren't counted during the 2004 election) sent me a link to a site where I could ask Supreme Court Justice-to-be John Roberts a question.

So I asked:

I was curious why abortion is such a clear, important issue to you, yet desegregation of schools, protection of endangered species, and even the protection of the lives of doctors in abortion clinics is not.
Unborn children must be left alive, but children who are already on this Earth have no right to privacy or protection under the law? Should a twelve year old girl really go to jail for eating a frenchfry? Should a child be forced to participate in a religious activity that s/he doesn't believe in, just because s/he wants to attend his/her own graduation ceremony?

These are all in response to some of his seriously reactionary stances as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for only two years. Before that, he was a corporate law firm lawyer for most of his career. * He has tried to make it as hard as possible to further the desegregation of schools, and approved of D.C.'s harsh handling of a twelve-year-old girl who ate one french fry on a train (she was then handcuffed, arrested, and taken into a windowless police vehicle). * He argues against laws that limit sex discrimination. He supported abortion clinic protestors who bombed abortion clinics.
Okay, it's one thing to be "pro-life". It's another thing entirely when you are opposed to the destruction of a creature that hasn't even passed the reptilian stage of development, but okay with the destruction of human lives. It's okay, as long as they perform abortions, they deserve it. What kind of logic is that?
Worst of all, I know some "progressives" who actually tell me to calm down about Roberts. "Bush is going to nominate a Right-Winger for the Supreme Court, anyway, so be glad it's him." Yes, that's a good attitude. Hitler was going to kill millions of Jews either way, so be glad it was only six million. "There's nothing we can do about it." Okay, so go SIT ON YOUR FUCKING ASS and tell me I'm being naive by thinking we should do something to change it!!!! UGH!!!! I'm through with this foul country!!!!

* Information I got from NARAL and People for the American Way

The Maori Intentional Community Ecovillage Commune Pig Farms for Free-Loving Hippies Escaping the Brutal Capitalist, War-mongering System

Okay, a little fun-pokey at the hippie community, which includes I. And yes, I am aware of my incorrect grammar. I originally wrote the title in an email to my parents, making fun of them for going off to New Zealand in search of Utopia. Okay, not really Utopia, just something better than the US, which in itself isn't saying much, but New Zealand is saying plenty. I want to go there.
So I'm staying up until 4 AM writing in my blog, and I've got all this anger built up inside of me, and I don't know what to do. Writing politics, venting, complaining about the rich fucks--it's all fine and dandy, until you ask me what I want to do with my life. Why, I want to save the world, of course! Oh, you mean something more specific? Could I be an iconic socialist-environmentalist human rights leader who also writes fiction novels in her spare time? Okay, cool, I got my life set out for me! Too bad we don't get to live a hundred lives. But really, if you honestly want to know what I want to do as a career, that's honestly it. Now, it's time to narrow it down a bit. I got some of that done already. I know the novelist part is going to have to just be a hobby, if anything at all. I'm majoring in Ecology and Peace Studies at Antioch College. I could work for a non-profit or non-governmental organization and try to build a coalition with other NGOs through mine, but fist, I'd have to work my way up into a high position in that organization. What organization would that be? Well, my dream would be to work for the UN. UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), to be exact. I guess that's political; policy building and stuff. I'd love to do that, but I also want to build coaltions. Maybe I could volunteer at some NGOs, and build a coalition that way? I don't know, but I'd better figure it out before I go to graduate school.
I know I'm just getting all these silly retail jobs, because maybe I'm scared to try my full potential. I know I'm better than that. I shied away from the Clean Water Action job, but it really was stressful. My mother thought I could handle it. I honestly don't know, but she seems to think that I need to get a job with that kind of stress in order to show my full potential. I think the kind of job at the UUA would be perfect, and not nearly as stressful as going door-to-door, depending on a daily quota that will possibly get me fired. I think that was the most stressful part of all. If there hadn't been a quota, I may have been fine. But I can't just pretend there isn't a quota.
Well, time to play some Snood and Chowder. And then sleep, get up tomorrow, go shopping, do laundary, more dishes, water plants, call psychiatrist and doctor and dentist and the co-op office at Antioch. Well, I promised myself I'd make a list, and I think I just did.