A New World Order?

RD-
family planning is actually being done in india. there are a number of cultural and political issues why it is being resisted by some people. overpopulation is an issue here, though not seen as one that endangers the entire planet, but obviously it is becoming uncomfortable here within our own borders when there is a scarcity of water, and now also food. maybe that is why you havent heard anyone from india or china mention it-i think it is seen as an internal issue. and hasnt china already limited family size to one child only? i mean forcefully by the government? can you imagine what americans would say about that policy?

as far as a solution, your analogy about the weight of a person really doesnt apply-it is difficult to say how much food a person requires, that is an individual matter based on metabolism and activity level among other things. but it could be said that everyone is entitled to the amount of food necessary to maintain a healthy weight according to agreed upon standards. so that person who weighs 300 pounds is going to feel hungry at first but later be more healthy. remember most people in the western world are above the optimum weight level by all standards.

however if you want to say (and i am sure you dont, but to show you why i feel the analogy is inappropriate) that since each family should have only two children, every family will be given enough food for only two. those families who have more than two children can share amongst themselves and all suffer from malnutrition, or decide which of their two children will live and let the rest die?

so the question of per capita being a means of distribution would not be fair, you are right. there has to be a balance that takes in all considerations. this is the kind of detailed plan that would have to be worked out among the world if it could agree on sharing resources.

you know i can remember when the peace talks began between usa and north viet nam. they argued for what must have been weeks about the size and shape of the table they were going to sit at. i was ready to tear out all my hair listening to it. but the war is over. any great summit meeting even if everyone is on the same side is going to be that difficult. the problem is they dont realize they are on the same side.

But Salima, the point I was hoping to make is how are the leaders of the key nations to get past these issues to that higher level of discussion of the greater problems, the immediate threats? Both sides at the G8 could be seen digging in their heels for the big battle that's shaping up to take place at Copenhagen in December.

The earth can support roughly four billion people and that's it. We're nearing seven and some, such as the UN, forecast us peaking at nine billion. That would be more than double the carrying capacity of our planet.

If the West is going to allow the Third World and emerging economies a greater share of our collective resources, it will have to restrain both "free enterprise" and the voting populations who have come to see that as some innate economic right guaranteed them by democracy. The mentality holds that "I can have whatever and as much as I can buy."

No, everyone has to get smaller, each nation in its own way. We Westerners must reduce our consumption and radically slash our greenhouse gas emissions. I suspect China and India are going to have to accept equally radical reductions in their populations that I think will be inflicted by the ravages of climate change, freshwater shortages, agricultural sector collapse, famine and disease.

Me? I live in the second largest nation by area that also happens to be one of the 10-least densely populated. We are rich in just about everything including energy resources. Our territory stretches to the North Pole, the very region Lovelock has identified as the refuge for mankind. While our territory constitutes an enormous carbon sink, we have the same carbon footprint per capita as our American friends to the south. There's an awful lot of travel entailed in having such a large country with so few people. Also as a northern state we use a lot of energy for heating in the winter.

Then there's the United States. Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau compared us to a mouse sleeping with an elephant. What are the chances America will allow us our bounty if its people begin to suffer the ravages of climate change? They already have their own groundwater timebomb ticking away.

Will they demand amalgamation, that we dissolve ourselves into their very flawed union? A leading military expert who has recently explored the climate change effects from a military perspective has opined that, as a general rule, each nation's greatest threat will become the closest nation that stands between it and the equator.

Maybe they'll choose to join us instead. There is already a fascinating integration on economic and environmental issues underway between America's coastal and northern states and the Canadian provinces. If conditions worsen throughout the American south and prairie regions, it is not unthinkable that some blue states could look for a better deal to the north. The culture wars waged by America's right ever since Reagan have left that country fractured. It is a powerful coincidence that the major environmental calamities that could beset the United States would follow the fracture line between their Red and Blue states.

No one can foresee what will happen. This is an unprecedented confluence of so many interwoven problems of a truly global scale. Maybe the best we can all do is try to get through this without resorting to the most destructive wars imagineable and simply let nature run her course.

At the end of the day we cannot defeat nature despite all our arrogant assumptions to the contrary over the past four decades. Lovelock's Gaia will restore balance if we will not and she has a powerful array of tools to do that - droughts, floods, fierce storms, heating and sea level rise among them.

Some of us have this warped belief ingrained from their religion that we are masters of the earth, that it is there to do our bidding, to give us everything we can take and absorb what we then discard. God made this planet for us so he won't let global warming or any of these other crises bring us down and there is no need, therefore, for restraint. I shudder at this thinking.

At present, does the vast majority of human beings want more food than they need biologically?

At present, does the vast majority of human beings prefer an air conditioned dwelling to one open to the outside air?

At present, does the vast majority of human beings prefer eating the food they want to the food they are told is healthy, locally grown, organic, etc.?

At present, does the vast majority of human beings want a car?

At present, does the vast majority of human beings want a T.V.?

At present, does the vast majority of human beings want electric lights?

At present, does the vast majority of human beings want clean water?

In short, at present, does the vast majority of human beings want to a modern, industrial or post-0industrial lifestyle?

The answer to all these questions, ignoring the fact that obviously quite a few people around the world don't know what air conditioning, T.V., etc are, is a resounding yes. The idea that we should all live sustainably and in peace with the earth, without expending undue quantities of resources on ourselves, is a luxury of those who already enjoy the modern, comfortable, soft, industrial or post-industrial lifestyle. This is comparable to the fact that irrational philosophy, as from Nietzsche e.g., is not possible except in response to a rationalistic society. Nietzsche could not have existed in 19th century Borneo, where there was no rationality against which to rebel. In the same way, you'll be hard-pressed to find a vegan in Sudan.

The skepticism of the third world regarding our grand schemes for saving the globe is quite understandable. We are not asking them to moderate their consumption, we are asking them to prevent future consumption which we've already enjoyed. We are asking them to promise never to industrialize and to hope that solar and wind power are enough to feed and clothe their growing populations, for which tasks those energy sources are probably insufficient, at least for some time.

For the West, sustainability means austerity. We will be asked constantly, through the modification of our most personal and seemingly private habits, to sacrifice for the common good, as defined by the powers in Washington, or London, or Paris, or Berlin. We will pay taxes for all of our activities, we will be made to feel guilty for existing, we will be encouraged to bear as few offspring as possible, we will accept every hardship and inequity in the name of the great cause of which we are told we are just a small part: saving mother earth. After a generation, there will be nothing that the government will feel ashamed to ask of us. We will live like dogs at the behest of our masters. It's seems to me that sustainability is synonymous with totalitarianism.

The question begs however: qui bono? Who benefits from all this? Or will this period of human history be looked back upon as a one of unbridled stupidity and political incoherence? Some people believe that human history consists of a series of individually meaningless, undirected, unplanned, chaotic movements which only in hindsight might appear to have a direction. Philosophically, I will agree that history has no direction, no goals, no end, but that's not to say that individuals in various periods of history did not have goals. On the contrary, wouldn't it be odd to believe that they didn't. Wouldn't it be even more strange to suppose that the most influential people in a society didn't have the most success in reaching their goals? Certainly. The only thing I'm suggesting that may be controversial in the least is that the elite of our society not only have goals which they are especially well placed to achieve, but that those goals are for us and society as a whole, not only for themselves.

What is always the objective of the most powerful? To remain the most powerful! Is that surprising? What has been the dominant force in the past few centuries, since out ascent from out of European feudalism? Religion? No. Political ideology? No. Money! The world we enjoy today is the world created by the free market, created by the investment of excess production in new productive capacity. Who controls this process? Ultimately, those who deal with the money itself control the system which rests upon money: i.e. the banks. I don't want to repeat so many others in trying to explain this phenomenon, but I'll just say a few things. Learn about the the history of the Federal Reserve System in the U.S. and about the Bank of England. Who created and/or controls them? Why would this be so? For what purposes? Then ask yourself who really controls the governments of the western nations? What does democracy mean in the terms of the dynamics of power? Learn about the history and practice of central banking in general. About it's relationship to communism in practice, though not in ideology. Ask yourself why. After not very long the answers should become plain. There is nothing better for a corporations or bank than communism or state control of production and distribution, provided those corporations and banks control the state. J.P. Morgan once said, 'competition is a sin.' The lofty ideals of communist sympathizers were early on co-opted by the great industrial magnates and finance oligarchs in order that 1) those ideas not become a threat to their own dominance, and 2) a complete monopoly could be achieved, which is only possible in a state planned economy. Next, learn about the private organizations established by the great industrial magnates and bankers: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ford Foundation, the various round-table groups in Britain, the dominions, and the U.S., the Royal Society for International Affairs, the London School of Economics, the Fabian Society, The Council on Foreign Relations, and all their derivatives. What is the purpose of these think-tanks and other deliberative organizations? Why do they list as members some of the most influential politicians, businessmen, and intellectuals in the world? Is it reasonable assume that these meetings are not intended to be the birthplace of policies which shortly thereafter are announced by the various western nations? How naive can we be? How stupid are we? The most important people in the world get together to discuss high policy on a regular basis in secret and we believe them when they say they aren't actually making policy. We never question the fact that most of our leaders, including those which are supposedly enemies of one another, come from the same schools, the same social clubs, the same interrelated, prestigious families?

Orwell had it right. What is intended for us, what is being implemented as we speak, is oligarchical collectivism: i.e. a system under which those who are ruled appear to be existing as part of a collective, on equal terms with one another, working towards the greater good, while above is a class of oligarchs who live in a luxury beyond the wildest dreams of the proles, and who decides what 'common good' means, and shape society for their own benefit, but mostly for the sake of power itself. As goes the motto of the Fabian Society, of which Tony Blair was a member, 'Shape it dearer to the heart's desire.' Incidentally, the emblem of the society is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

To return to the original point of this post. I believe that, while the resourced depletion challenges facing mankind are very much real and serious, the coming crises of that sort will be used, as are all good crises, to the advantage of the ruling class. We will emerge from these trials a more subdued, domesticated, servile population. More specifically, I think we will see increasing movement, directed from the top-down, though always under the illusion to the contrary, toward international 'governance,' communal rights as opposed to individual, a lower quality of living, and conscious, orchestrated depopulation. What is the end game? In my opinion, within my lifetime, and yes I'm a young man, there will be a more or less formal world government, ruled through bureaucracy by a scientific dictatorship, directed ultimately, and covertly, by the plutocrats.

A world government. Perhaps. The Pope rocked a lot of people when he called for a genuinely global economy, a new world economic order.

I do believe the nation state is less viable today than it was in the era of Kennedy/Nixon. We embarked on a new paradigm in the late 80's when mankind's consumption of renewable resources reached our planet's capacity to replenish them.

Since then we've created a dangerously false illusion of ever greater capacity and sustainability by so many conjuring acts - ramping up agricultural production dependent on draining aquifers at many times their recharge rate, savaging the world's main fisheries and then "fishing down the foodchain" to move on to less desirable stocks once the prime species have been brought to virtual extinction, overworking farmland until it becomes so exhausted it transforms into desert. We pitched this snakeoil as "sustainable development" but now reality is setting in.

The emerging economic giants can aspire to whatever they wish but they cannot create the resources essential to their aspirations. They will have to settle for trying to compete for a share of products we in the West have pretty much monopolized. The one resource for which they cannot compete, the one that truly matters more than all others, is freshwater. That, I'm convinced, stands as an insurmountable barrier to all their hopes of achieving the "good life."

We may emerge as you suggest more "subdued, domesticated [and] servile" but I wouldn't be too fearful of international governance once global stability breaks down and I'm pretty sure it will. I think we will be drawn, of necessity, into more integrated alliances and I suspect the dominant one will entail some alliance of North America (excluding Mexico probably) and Northwestern Europe.

Add inflationary momentary system and Keynesian economic policy to the list of illusions. In fact, without those deceptions, out situation vis a vis natural resources and the environment would be much better. Yes, we probably would have used about the same resources regardless of policies, simply because of increasing population, BUT* more of those resources would have been invested productively and helped ensure our long-term prosperity, had the monetary system not artifially stimulated our appetites for consumer goods and built an excess of everything associated with the consumer economy, which is collapsing now under its own weight.



I think you're right about water. China and India, among others, cannot possibly reach our level of material prosperity, BUT* as out standard of living declines (and I think it will decline rapidly) there relative share of the world's remaining natural resources will increase, so much that I think, even in the event of gross declines over the next decade(s), they will see a gross gain. I'd agree that a North aMerican Union of some kind is coming; it's already in place in many important respects. Who knows when it might become formal. The EU took about five decades, I think now the pro0gram for regional government will be accelerated. A global economic crisis could well cause a breakdown of the international system and lead to increased nationalism, as nation compete for resources, however, it might also provide the perfect opportunity for global government. Problem, reaction, solution. Like with domestic concerns in the U.S., money would be at the heart of any new international authority. The US$ cannot continue as the world's reserve currency for long. We are being told that major plays are in favor of a new international currency, t be used only between central banks at first: based on the SDR's of the IMF. The Carbon taxing scheme centers around the world bank. What does a central bank need to produce infinite amounts of fiat and thus have enormous control of the area under its jurisdiction? A tax base. What is the IMF/World Bank lacking in order to become a true world central bank. A tax base, which it will have from carbon taxes. There are agreements already between the embryonic NAU and the EU. I think once we see greater regional government, global government or at least super-regional government (all the Americas, or North America + western Europe, e.g.) will arise rapidly. The argument that greater regional/global cooperation is needed to prevent the complete exhaustion of the earth's resources is reasonable, BUT* I think anyone who knows which powers are controlling and in favor of this process of integration would be very skeptical. Is it possible that we are being/will be persuaded to give up our national sovereignty in the interest of something truly important and threatening (peak energy, e.g.), but then give up that soveirgnty and hand over the power to regional/international bureaucrats only to find that they use it quite differently than we had anticipated? That's quite a gamble. It seems to me that there is no envrionmental issue which could not be solved as well by international treaty as by international government. Why does sovereignty have to be surrendered? Federalism is a very important and well thought out concept. It's not accident that we in the states have states. It inspires competition and innovation and, most importantly, should one region become oppressed, the people can vote with their feet and go to other regions, which may, if the oppressive region becomes to problematic, change it. On the other hand, a world government cannot be overthrown, there is no large country acorss the Atltnic which can invade it and defat its totalitarianism, there is no where to run to. If we are going to have a world government, we better be dam# sure it's the one we want, because there will be no going back.

I think whatever new structures emerge - whether alliances or broader governments - we're unlikely to see the evolution of anything approaching a world government. That's because the looming challenges won't be spread equally but will vary enormounsly in the rate of manifestation and severity of impact from region to region. This will magnify the growing disparity between regions and will likely cause nations to draw together according to pretty hard-nosed considerations such as commonality of interests and circumstances.

All this talk about truly global solutions to problems like global warming is probably just that. Once climate-change driven famine sets in, especially in countries like India and China, the window for effective global cooperation will probably slam shut.

Several years ago the magazine The Economist pondered whether the West ought to engage the rest of the world or surround itself with an enormous Hadrian's Wall and deal with the rest of the world as so many barbarians at the gate. At the time it sounded awfully radical but it seems to be gaining more support these days.

Once we conclude that the Western lifeboat has enough problems just keeping itself afloat do you really think we're going to be welcoming the rest of the world to jump aboard?

I think you have the dynamic backwards. The West is in the worst shape. China and India will suffer from our lost consumer spending, but we will suffer equally from that lost consumer spending and also from the debt-pyramids, malinvestment, etc, etc, we have been and are still constructing, which didn't make it across the pacific in great quantities. I see loss of reserve currency status and then domestic hyperinflation for the dollar, followed by the looting of the country by foreigners taking advantage of the exchange rate. All our material prosperity can be undone quickly if not backed with anything of substance, like production or real growth. I seriously without exaggeration, see the day when these new superfluous houses and other structures will be worth more as sources of copper scrap, piping, etc. than as domiciles and will be dismantled and sold to foreign carpetbaggers. The only thing really preventing global gpovernment is American soviegnty. If the dire circumstances that I listed arise, that soveirgnty will gladly be surrendered in exchange for IMF loans, a styable new currency, law and order in the streets, etc. The chaos of the french revolution, Napoleon; the chaos of wartime tsarist Russia, Lenin; the chaos of post-war Italy, Mussolini; the chaos of Wiemar Germany, Hitler; the Chaos of wartime China, Mao...etc. My point is not that this present crisis will end with a formal dictatorship of some kind, but rather that, in times of serious turmoil, freedom and sovereignty are very often traded for security, food, etc. If war's break out, say between China and India over Himalayan water sources, that's just more chaos. When things settle down eventually, the only institutions capable of picking up the pieces will be global. This is just my opinion. Such huge developments have so many intircate moving parts that predicting the future of them is pretty futile. But right now, knowing what I know, watching events unfold, this is the future I see, more or less.

You could be right but I think the consequences of overpopulation and resource depletion/exhaustion/misallocation will overtake economic questions. I think much of Africa, the Middle East and vast portions of Central, South and East Asia are facing environmental threats they cannot hope to contain. I'd be willing to bet that within one decade, two at the outside, the issue of reserve currency status will be far back on our agenda.

I think you're right that the reserve currency question will become insignificant in comparison to other issues, especially once international trade breaks down. However, right now, its the more pressing issue. The fact that the dollar is the reserve currency is not only an economic issue. When the dollar loses that status, the entire western-dominated world will be lost with it. And so the current developing nations will be the arbiters of the new order, not the West. If anyone's going to get fed in the rapidly depleting world, its going to be them. Of course, I'm talking about the big players. Africa will remain a satellite of some great power, probably China. And little countries like Bangladesh will get annihilated by climate change and overpopulation or be incorporated into larger countries.

China and the Middle Eastern states are certainly aggressive in trying to economically colonize agrarian regions of Africa and Southeast Asia. It's quite remarkable to see China buying up rich African farmland in nations that already have domestic food shortages.

I think (and hope) you misread the food issue. Western food production should be the most climate-change resistant particularly compared to South and East Asia and Africa. We're a Northern Hemispheric civilization that reaches as far as one can possibly get from equitorial problems.

You're absolutely right that food will be more abundant in the west than elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it will be consumed in the west. We saw the price of wheat spike quite high in a short priod of time last summer when the dollar was at its lows. If there were a genuine hyperinflationairy event in the U.S., or even just prolonged severe inflation, e.g. 20% annually, that incident would look like nothing. I'm curious, which of the middle eastern states is involved in buying up African resources? I hadn't heard about that, though it wouldn't surprise me.

Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are all pursuing African farmland deals as are the Chinese and South Koreans. More recently the first of these competitors has begun making moves on farmland in Cambodia. Peasants there fear their own government will force them off their ancestral homelands.

Where rich countries are buying farmland | csmonitor.com

That's interesting. Do you have a source for specific numbers, like how much each nation is investing and where? I'd like to check that out.

Sorry, no. There is an NGO in Washington that deals strictly with food issues and has done a lot of fine work on this subject but the name escapes me right now.

I went to track it down and it's the International Food Policy Research Institute. Their web site is at www.ifpri.org