Do the Math

Population + technology + energy use + consumerism + resource depletion + global warming + environmental degradation + ocean acidification + loss of biodiversity = totally fucked.

These aren’t separate problems; they’re all part of the same problem caused by too many people competing for too few resources using too much energy-dependent technology in a constrained environment.

Over the last few decades, global population more than doubled, while global energy use went up even more. For the first time in history, humanity consumed more renewable resources (on an annual basis) than planet Earth can restore. For the first time in history, we maxed out the planetary credit card.

There’s no denying that the global economy is hamstrung by a nexus of perfect storms―overpopulation, overconsumption, overproduction, environmental destruction, ecological mayhem, pollution, resource depletion, climate changes attributed to global warming, and probably a few others. For the first time in history, we simultaneously peaked on everything that’s essential to long-term human survival. The implications, in terms of population numbers, are obvious.

A vibrant, growing economy results in major impacts to environment and ecosystem alike. Human demand (consumption) drives production (exploitation of natural resources, energy use) and all other forms of economic activity that, in aggregate, take a horrendous toll on the environment. The rational approach to averting climate catastrophe (and a few others, too) is to take our collective foot off the economic throttle and let the economy idle for a good long while.

We can fix the economy by making radical changes to it now and introducing fundamental changes as we go along to ensure we get it right, but if we don’t take immediate radical steps to fix the environment, then it’s game over for most species―maybe all species, including ours. If ever there was a time for radicalism, this is it.

Our best chances of surviving what’s coming down the road begin with stopping―not reducing―CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere, accompanied by shutting off the flow of toxic chemicals entering the environment. The fastest way to accomplish this is to abandon our industrial economy’s endless cycles of production and consumption in favor of something that’s less destructive of the environment and more supportive of life.

Q >>>

Damned if We Do, Damned if We Don't

As it turns out, a robust economy and a healthy environment are incompatible. If we rev up the economy, the environment suffers. If we protect the environment, the economy tanks. On the face of it, there’s no way to win; we’re literally damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Double damned, actually, because in effect we can’t have either one. The pundits won’t say it, the media won’t air it or print it, the politicians won’t think it and business leaders all deny it, but the status quo has lose/lose written all over it.

There are only two ways out of this dilemma; one you won’t like, and the other you’ll like even less. The first option is to slow the economy gradually but quickly by various means to avoid the harshest impacts to people, and then replace it with an entirely new, sustainable system that protects the environment and excludes no one. The second option is to crash the economy dead in its tracks, cull the human herd by 75% or more, and then reset the board for a new game (presumably of Monopoly). A third option (an ode to the status quo but no way out) is to stay mired in our dilemma, resist all temptations to act in our own best interests, ignore the obvious, deny an undeniable reality and essentially let nature fix the problem for us.

Of several strategies capable of slowing the economy, austerity seems like the best choice. Austerity, as proven on numerous occasions, can effectively slow an economy―or bring it to a complete standstill―in a relative short time. Another result of austerity―intended or not―is that it increasingly puts the superfluous population at greater risk by denying people trapped in this demographic access to the things they need to survive; people who lack the means to survive usually don't. In addition to cooling off the economy, austerity sets the stage for reducing global population numbers to a sustainable level.

There are two kinds of austerity, one soft, the other hard. "Soft" austerity is self-imposed―the kind you accept voluntarily and do willfully―a conscious effort to reduce one's appetite for consumer goods for the greater good of all. Such efforts might include intentionally downsizing one's home, becoming car-free, or reducing one's energy consumption in myriad ways; all are forms of soft austerity. One willingly sacrifices a certain amount of personal comfort, convenience and pleasure for the sake of a smaller carbon footprint.

"Hard" austerity, thrust upon one against one's will by an outside force, chokes off the money supply in the economy. In essence it denies people access to the goods and services they need to survive. It's the kind of austerity that’s pervasive in the world today. Hard austerity is not only a means of population control, it's also a tool that, when skillfully wielded, ensures the wealthy remain at the top of the world pecking order. To put it simply, the wealthy impose austerity on the rest of us (none for them, thank you) by capturing most of the newly created wealth and/or the money increase that accompanies it.

Unfortunately, austerity imposed by the wealthy is aimed at the wrong end of the economic spectrum. For maximum effect, austerity must also target the rich because it is they who contribute the most to environmental destruction. By focusing austerity only on those already struggling to make ends meet, the wealthy betray their true intention to soften up the superfluous population prior to a cull. It’s capitalism they care about, not people or the environment.

Used wisely and applied fairly, austerity measures can be valuable assets in helping humans avert a global environmental disaster. When used in the way that the wealthy now use it, austerity is only an implement of destruction.

In the first analysis, austerity seems like the easiest, cheapest and surest way of bringing the global economy to an idle in the shortest possible time―short of a sudden crash. In the final analysis, nothing changes; the inescapable truth is that economic contraction is an environmental imperative if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe that inevitably leads to a major extinction event.

Q >>>

Words to Live By (Part 2)

[Many thanks to Lambert Strether, a contributor at Naked Capitalism, for linking to my April 20th Saturday evening post (I know, I know) first thing on the following Monday morning, which caused a day-and-a-half-long flurry of activity on Frieddogleg (as recorded by my Feedjit Live Traffic Feed.) Nearly a week later, the ripples continue.]

“Some will come back. So post wisely and well.”

―Lambert Strether

The Rest of the Story

The Feedjit Live Traffic Feed shows that most of the traffic―as much as 90% of it―arriving on Frieddogleg comes from a single source: Naked Capitalism. Virtually all the rest of it originates from a single source: BLCKDGRD. My gratitude to each bubbles over. I can’t imagine a better scenario to mark my return to blogging. Traffic when you need it. What a concept!

Another mouse-click, this time on a backlink, takes me to Naked Capitalism and the page on which the link to Frieddogleg resides. The link is rather nearer the bottom of a substantially long list of links, but it’s easily found.

Later on, I find that Lambert Strether, a contributor to Naked Capitalism and the person responsible for giving a homeless link to Frieddogleg a home, posted a reply to my earlier “thank you” comment. This, of course, prompted me to reply to his reply―well, you know the drill.

When somebody does me a kindness, I make it a point to acknowledge it, to say “thanks” and, if possible, to repay in kind. I scroll down to the comments section, write a short “thank you” message that I hope adequately expresses my gratitude, post the message to comments, and commence with revising my plans for a now radically altered day.

Elegant in its simplicity, eloquent in its meaning, Lambert’s third-round reply is the one that ends our brief exchange. His simple words and prescient message need no response. Besides, anything I can possibly say will only be anti-climactic.

Lambert Strether’s closing words were these: “Some will come back. So post wisely and well.”

Lambert’s comment refers to blog traffic, the general subject of our online back-and-forth. Profoundly wise, those words, and relevant to any blogger who struggles to attract new readers or hold onto old ones.

Some will come back.

Yes, some will come back; they’ll return time and again because you give them something they’re looking for―something they want or need and can’t get enough of anywhere else. If you give them what they’re looking for and keep them engaged, first-time visitors and casual readers often become loyal followers. These are your people.

Unfortunately, some will never come back. Accept that there’s little you can do about these except maybe try harder in the future. Bear in mind that the things that interest, motivate, inspire, compel, entertain and inform vary from person to person, and that no blog is a one-size-fits-all operation. For these reasons, trying harder is often an exercise in futility. Only you can decide if the extra effort is worth it.

So post wisely and well.

The second part of Lambert’s quote reminds us that, as bloggers, we have moral and ethical obligations and responsibilities to our readers and to the blogging community as a whole. We don’t steal content. We always give proper attribution when we do. We don’t provide safe refuge for spam in our comments section. We assume that our readers are as smart as we are and treat them as equals. We acknowledge our commenters’ contributions. We seek (and sometimes give) permission. We show respect for those with whom we share the blogosphere. We seek to inform, not misinform. We do our best to deliver our best because that’s what our loyal readers expect of us. These informal rules are simple and few, but when they’re observed they make for a friendlier, more civil and more efficient Internet experience for everyone involved.

Taken together, the two parts of Lambert’s quote add up to a healthy admonition for conscientious bloggers to examine their own efforts from time to time and correct the shortcomings that tend to impede or dissuade blog traffic arrival or retention.

Taken together, the two parts of Lambert’s quote add up to a single unified message: Think before you act. That’s the take-away.

“Some will come back. So post wisely and well.”

Are there better words for bloggers to live by?

Q >>>

Words to Live By (Part 1)

“Some will come back. So post wisely and well.”

―Lambert Strether

First, the Backstory

Monday. Earth Day. 10:00 a.m.―oh, alright, quarter-to-eleven―I roll out of the sack in anticipation of a fairly laid-back day, not quite awake but too awake to get back to sleep. There’s nothing on today’s agenda more complicated than booting the computer, checking e-mail, fixing breakfast, doing some prep work in my garden, visiting with my neighbors, fixing lunch, with time for reading and writing near day’s end followed by a late dinner and more reading before retiring around 2 a.m. So far, at least, it looks like just another routine day―minus a few of the routines.

Except this is not a routine day; today is Earth Day―a major holiday for me―and I plan on giving it a rest. The petitions can wait. The pleas for donations can wait. Blog and blogosphere can wait. Although I have yet to lay eyes on my computer this morning, I already envision deleting e-mail as fast as I can pound the delete key, because I know most of it will be the same kind of vacuous bullshit that shows up during every holiday―essentially meaningless trivia trying hard to disguise the fact that the message contains nothing of great importance. No time for that today. Delete. Delete. Delete.

Fifteen minutes later I’m at my computer, breakfast in hand and coffee close-at-hand, scrolling and scanning for e-mail that might demand my immediate attention when something leaps out and grabs it. Yippee-ki-yay! Someone commented on the piece I posted on Saturday, and before I can stop myself I click the mouse. In less than a minute, my plans for the day begin to unravel.

It’s not the comment that causes the unraveling, however, but what’s happening on my Feedjit Live Traffic Feed. For some reason, Frieddogleg suddenly seems to be every Internet surfer’s favorite destination; the traffic is insane. Clearly, something unusual is going on, possibly something important, and almost certainly something that bears further investigation. Before I can stop myself, I click the mouse.

The Feedjit Live Traffic Feed window on the blog page shows the last ten visitors to the blog. Clicking the Real-time View link at the bottom of the window takes you to the Feedjit site, where you get to see the last 50 visitors. In my case, only the most recent visitor hails from Portland, Oregon; the previous 49 represent visits from diverse locations all around the world over the last two or three hours. It’s unprecedented. I’ve only seen this kind of activity on A- and B-list blogs, never before on Frieddogleg. The standard questions―Who? What? Why, How? Where?―are most in need of answers, but how many times have this list turned over is the question now burning brightest in my mind.

In seconds I return to my senses. Stick to what’s important, I tell myself; accept the good things that come to you gracefully and graciously, but always do your best to find out what you did to deserve them. With those thoughts now at the forefront and my mission back on track, I begin my quest to solve this nagging mystery, minor though it is.

(to be continued)

Q >>>

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

A spike in traffic to Frieddogleg (for our purposes, “spike” is defined as two or more visitors on the same day), all of it coming from here, caught my attention earlier today and prompted me to do a little additional sleuthing. It wasn’t hard to find the link.

BDR has been a good friend of this blog almost from the beginning; a similar link to one of my earliest posts produced a similar increase in traffic that helped launch Frieddogleg into the blogosphere* back in ’09, scant weeks before we lost Jon Swift forever. I couldn’t be more delighted that he has done so once again, wittingly or not, to help kick-start my renewed commitment to blogging (or “bleggalizing,” as BDR would probably say).

Those already familiar with BLCKDGRD need no introduction; those who aren’t need only know that BLCKDGRD is a quirky blog featuring a wide range of topics, including sports, music, avant-garde poetry, literature, scathing political commentary, and enough links to interesting articles on equally interesting blogs to keep you interested until you run out of time.       

Go there. Introduce yourself. Get acquainted. If you have a blog of your own, exchange links. If you’re a victim―rather than a beneficiary―of 21st-century economics, it’s not like you’ve got anything better to do.

*A term coined by Skippy

Q >>>

Environment 1, Economy 0

According to a recent report in The Guardian (UK), the world’s wealthy have as much as $32 trillion stashed in off-shore accounts.

Why is all that money stashed in off-shore accounts? The obvious answer is that it’s avoiding the tax man, of course. The less obvious answer―the answer almost everyone overlooks―is that it’s cooling the economy and helping to reduce CO₂ emissions and other forms of pollution worldwide.

Wait! What?

That’s right. Money acts as a lubricant for the economy. When you take away substantial amounts of lubricant, machinery starts to bog down. If you take away all of the lubricant, machinery seizes up and grinds to a halt. The economy works on the same principle; it needs plenty of lubricant (money) to keep the machinery running smoothly at top speed. When money goes out of the economy, the economy slows down, contracts and turns sluggish. You know, about like the global economy is doing right now.

More money circulating in the economy means more people have more money to spend on goods and services, which stimulates the economy. When demand goes up, businesses hire more workers to help them meet the increased demand. Taking money out of the economy produces the exact opposite effect.

Money taken out of the economy and squirreled away might as well not exist; certainly nothing would change if it ceased to exist. Money held in savings represents economic activity that’s already occurred; as long as that money is held in savings, it can’t be used to stimulate new economic activity. In terms of the economy, money is only useful when it’s spent. In terms of the environment, the opposite is true; unspent money represents reduced economic activity and a corresponding reduction of industrial pollution entering the environment.

Whether by intent or as an unintended consequence of rapacious greed, the world’s wealthy seem to be doing the rest of us a huge favor by reining-in the causes of global warming. How cool is that?

Q >>>

M.I.A.

"Coming out of the recent election, it is clear that we're in the midst of a serious national conversation about marijuana." ― Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, January, 2013

Where the hell have you been, Gil? We’ve been having a serious national conversation about marijuana for forty fucking years, but your side refuses to participate.

Q >>>

Fuck DOMA, Support DORMA*

*Defense of Right to Marry Act 

 Or, you can just sign this petition: 

Change.org|Create a Petition

 Moral and social justice demands equality under the law.

Q >>>

Random Ramblings & Miscellaneous Musings

Random thoughts that almost became blog articles but, you know, didn’t:

The only truth is the one that conforms to reality.

• • •

Any society that puts a higher value on dead trees than it does on live ones deserves its fate.

• • •

Human beings became stewards of the planet largely because the fuckin’ polar bears and whales wouldn’t stand up and do it. Well, okay, I can understand why the whales didn’t stand up, but the polar bears? C’mon!

The irony is that we humans, despite our supposed superior intelligence and opposable thumbs, have been spectacular failures as planetary stewards; polar bears (and whales) could have done a better job.

Of course, polar bears (and whales) lack a profit motive.

• • •

"Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in a thousand days even though the law requires it," McConnell said, ignoring the fact that Senate Republicans have blocked every budget proposal put forth by Senate Democrats. Were it not for lies, damn lies and really insane lies, Republicans would operate in total silence (as would many Democrats, come to think of it).*

*My comments (highlighted) added to the original quote.

• • •

Government is not the problem; intellectually challenged morons that think government is the problem are the problem.

• • •

Maybe the best way to end abortion is to transplant an unwanted fetus from a woman that would otherwise opt for abortion into the uterus of a right-to-lifer. Think win/win.

• • •

When right-wing trolls post comments on lefty blogs accusing lefties of being on a mission to discredit Republicans, they confirm my suspicions that right-wingers are incapable of rational thought. C’mon, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize that Republicans are perfectly capable of discrediting themselves (as their track record amply demonstrates) and probably wouldn’t accept help from Democrats were it offered.

• • •

The rest of humanity is doing to the planet what Haitians did to Haiti. Just as Greece is the microcosm of the global economy, Haiti is the microcosm of the global environment. Both countries prove that when your position is untenable, you’re basically fucked. Do we really need to prove it on a planetary scale?

• • •

The powers-that-be and the bastards-that-are, are one and the same.

• • •

The problem is not a job shortage; the problem is too many people. With population numbers, climate change, environmental degradation and non-renewable resource depletion all in conflict, business-as-usual no longer works. Unless we transform our economy into something that is steady state and sustainable, we can expect the economic decline of the middle and working classes to continue its downward spiral in stages punctuated by brief intervals of perceived economic “recovery.”

• • •

Capitalism’s major fatal flaw is its absolute lack of sustainability; no system that consumes its resources to satisfy a profit motive can endure over the long term. Eventually, market saturation sets in, or environmental thresholds are breached, or consumer-demand changes, or critical resources become scarce, or some other limiting factor kicks in, and suddenly reality gives the economy a kick in the teeth. Yo, dumbass, you’re about to exceed the limits of physical reality. Abort! Abort! Having no other recourse, the economy aborts. Economic collapse is inevitable when delusions of endless prosperity through unlimited growth collide head-on with the limits of physical reality; the lesson here is that unrestrained growth cannot sustain in a constrained environment. 

Q >>>

Payback is a Bitch

The Supreme Court’s ruling (Citizens United v. FEC) essentially gave corporations, in the name of free speech, the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of public elections and dictate legislative agendas. In effect, the Supreme Court affirmed that money is equivalent to speech.

But if one buys that argument—that money is equivalent to speech—then one must also buy that speech is equivalent to money; what’s fair is fair. Equivalency is a two-way street.

With that in mind, I want to notify my corporate creditors that, beginning with the next billing cycle, all future payments will be made in the form of a short speech. The current exchange ratio of 1:1 (one word = one dollar) will apply. Subject of speeches is limited to a single issue, the evils of corporate greed. Creditors may choose either telephone or e-mail as the vehicle for payment delivery. 

If the 99% got on board with this by midnight tonight, we could end the global economic crisis by noon tomorrow.

Q >>>