Overpop

What is the greatest environmental threat facing the world today? Global warming? Deforestation? According to some experts, the greatest threat is in fact overpopulation (1). In Pakistan, for example, half the population of America is stuffed into approximately 1/12 (actually 2/25) the space. This would be equivalent to the population of the 10 most populous states squeezing into an area slightly larger than Texas. Overpopulation is also related to the other major problems facing the world. We have more people producing carbon dioxide, more people consuming the world's natural resources, more people, etc. etc. The problem of overpopulation also leads to questions of sustainability. Just how long can Earth support the human race at our current consumption and growth rate?

The ideas of overpopulation, sustainability, and overconsumption have been studied for a couple hundred years. It is thought that the studies first began in the early 1800's when Thomas Malthus posited that humans were growing at a geometric rate (ie exponential), while their food supply was only growing at an arithmetic rate (ie linearly) (2). His claims were eventually found to be false, however they have had long reaching consequences in terms of scientific thought.

For example this influence can be seen in several peak theories which have come into prevalence. Namely, peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorous, and peak grain (345). The idea of peak anything is that the production of any good can only increase for a set amount of time before it decreases terminally (that is, the production will never increase after that point). Estimates on when these points will be reached vary (eg some think that oil has peaked already, and some feel it will peak sometime in the future), but these are still very serious issues which must be given deep consideration.

The only ways to combat the problems mentioned above, I believe, are research and education. Research must be done into ways to help alleviate current and future problems. For example, it is well known that there is a great food shortage in Africa. If we were able to say develop a new type of synthetic meat which could easily be created and distributed. Obviously we must always be looking for better and cheaper alternative energy sources. Education is also incredibly important. With the problem of overconsumption we must educate the people about how to get by on fewer resources. For example if the populations of China and India were to consume resources at the rate at which Japan consumes resources they would need an entire planet to sustain themselves (6). Another problem is that in countries which are not as well off economically the birth rate is generally much higher (7). It is generally accepted that with increased education and literacy rates there comes a decreased fertility rate (8). This comes from both increased female independence, and an increased knowledge of contraceptives. It has been shown that by increasing education women come to believe that they have control over their fertility rates instead of some god or other supernatural force.

Who knows what the future will bring. There may be more problems than solutions. We may not have a chance to save ourselves, but we have to try. There has to be something we can do.

One final, interesting tidbit. While doing research I found this one website (9). While you're there it tells you how many people have been born, how many people have died, how much topsoil has been eroded, and a few other things. In the time it took me to write this 77, 150 people were born, and 7,728 people died of hunger (on average anyway). It's kinda neat.

Income Tax

In the United States tax law is a complex system which includes rules related to, but not limited to, income, gift, payroll, and estate taxes. Legally speaking, the current income tax came into being in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified. This Amendment stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to census or enumeration (1)." Since it's inception there have been several attempts to repeal the 16th Amendment, and to abolish the Income Tax (2). Whether or not this is the right course of action is hard to determine, but one thing is certain; this is a complex issue which must be closely examined.

One type of alternative which has been seriously considered is a Consumption Tax. A consumption tax is a tax on items consumed. The United States actually already has a type of consumption tax in the form of a sales tax. Some, however feel that we should abolish all other forms of tax and just have a pure consumption tax. One proposal which was introduced in 1999 (The FairTax proposal) would abolish all federal taxes (income, gift, payroll etc. etc.) in favor of a flat 23% consumption tax (3). This proposal would also abolish the IRS, and instead create two new Bureaus within the Department of the Treasury instead. The FairTax has yet to pass committee however. Proponents of a consumption tax claim that by only taxing items consumed citizens will be encouraged to save money instead of spending it. Some also believe that by taxing only products sold we can tax criminals who would not pay income taxes normally (4). Reports conflict on whether an almost pure consumption tax would help or hinder the economy overall, but it is clear that more research is needed.

Another type of tax plan which has been considered is a flat tax. A flat tax is exactly what it sounds like; a constant tax rate imposed on all members of a society. Two men, Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, wrote a novel expounding the virtue of a flat tax rate (5). The idea was to simplify the US tax code greatly, and to eliminate marginal tax rates. That is to make it so that as one's income grows one's taxes do not. Hall, and Rabushka felt that this encouraged laziness. Flat Taxes have already been instituted in a number of countries mostly in Eastern Europe (6). Seven states within the United States also have a flat tax rate (7). The problem with the idea of a flat tax rate becomes immediately clear; a flat tax is completely blind. A multimillionaire will feel the loss of 15% of their income a lot less than a person making only $60,000 per year.

Personally, I'm not 100% sure where I am on the issue of income tax. On one level, I understand why one would want to eliminate the income tax. I can understand wanting to keep 100% of the money one has earned. I can also understand why one would want our tax system simplified. Our system seems incredibly complex, and a simpler system would most likely help increase compliance with said code. However, while I agree that we should attempt to simplify the tax code I believe that the income tax should be kept in place. As I said the idea of a flat tax seems to blind, but I also think that a consumption tax may decrease the United States economy. And with the economy's current boom and bust cycle this seems doubly irresponsible. Instead I believe in marginal tax rates. I think that those who have higher incomes should pay higher taxes than those who make less. Which of course is the system the US already has in place. Data has shown that the wealthiest 5% of taxpayers accounted for 60% of income tax, while the bottom 50% only contributed 3% (4). Clearly there is interest in overhauling our current tax code out there, and more research is definitely required.

Drugs

One issue which isn't on the forefront of a lot of minds is drug legalization. Not just the legalization of marijuana, or MDMA (ecstasy), but rather the legalization of all drugs. The majority (around 82 percent according to one poll [1]) of Americans oppose the legalization of heroin and cocaine the same way alcohol is legalized. There are a multitude of pros and cons to both sides of the argument, and honestly at this point in time full drug legalization is nothing but a pipe dream for its advocates. However, I would still like to examine both sides of the argument. Whether these arguments are valid is up to the reader to decide.

One argument against drug legalization which holds a lot of weight is health concerns. Few would deny the negative effects which illegal drugs have on the human body. Some argue that if more drugs were to be legalized this would in turn lead to increased hospital admissions, and general health care costs. Others criticize the drug legalization movement from a legal view point. The USDEA claims that "Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs" (2). I once had a debate with a social studies teacher of mine who used the argument that the Constitution says that the job of the government is to protect the citizens as a reason to keep drugs illegal. Some say that if drugs were legal the dealers would not go away and would instead focus on a younger market. Finally, one cannot ignore the moral outrage many people feel about drugs and drug use (3).

The Pro side of the legalization argument has it's own points to make. For one, many cite the funding that many terrorist organization gain from drug sales as a reason to legalize (4). The reason the terrorists are able to profit off this sale is because the drugs are on the black market. Others cite the profit that the United States could theoretically make off the close control and taxation over a drug market. Still others use the argument that if the US were to control the drug market they could help lessen the dangers the drugs pose by closely monitoring what the drugs are cut with, the dosages, etc. Many feel that current US drug laws actually support the growth of large drug cartels. For example, one member of a Columbian drug cartel stated that he actually relied on US drug laws to help increase market price and to weed out smaller dealing operations (5).

I fall totally on the pro side of the argument. I feel that all drugs should be legalized from marijuana to cocaine to heroin. I could cite a myriad of reasons why I came to this decision, but I think to me it's mostly a matter of choice. I feel that it is not the role of the government to regulate its citizens's personal choices. Instead I feel that the government should exist to protect my right to choose not to take it away. Personally I have never abused a drug, nor drunk alcohol (nor do I have any real desire to), but I would fight tooth and nail for any citizen's right to do so. Would I prefer it if other's did not use drugs or alcohol? Sure, but it's not my right to tell them not to. I must say though, that is me coming from an idealized point of view. I understand that we will most likely not end drug prohibition in my lifetime, and that if it does ever happen it won't be for many generations (there are just too many social stigmas surrounding drug abuse). Instead perhaps we could legalize less dangerous drugs like ecstasy or marijuana. Perhaps we could just lessen the penalties for drug possession to help free up our prisons and allow our police officers to focus on more violent crimes. I would be happy with that. At the end of the day however, the end of drug prohibition would be my ultimate goal.

Finally, I think I'd like to end with a quote from a favored author of mine which inspired my interest in this argument "Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error of judgement" - Philip K. Dick (6)

Conscription

Now that I'm 18 one thing that has been on my mind quite a bit is military service. Now personally I have no desire to enlist, but what if I didn't have a choice? Conscription is defined as "compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service (1)." Around 30 major nations practice conscription including Egypt, Israel, and Russia (2). The idea of conscription dates all the way back to Hammurabi in 1700 B.C. and has existed in some form or another since then. Here in America we have instituted the draft several times (The Civil War, WWI, Viet Nam etc.). I know several people, however, who would like to see universal conscription implemented here.

I disagree with the idea of conscription for several reasons. First and foremost is the problem of discipline and the quality of the troops. A well disciplined, well trained military force is necessary for the national security, and also general defense of any nation. However, it is also true that the larger the standing military force is the harder it becomes to control the troops. Especially with no unifying ideal to hold the troops together. The reason the draft worked in WWII was because pretty much everybody wanted to defeat the Nazi's and the Japanese. The reason the draft didn't really work in Viet Nam (more draft dodger's) was because not many people actually supported the war. This lack of unity leads to more discipline problems, because if you don't believe in the war being fought why fight to the best of your ability? For a larger military you also need a larger number of officers for management of tactics, and training etc. Then there's the question of just how well trained the forces are and how you measure things. In my experience the larger an operation like this gets the more likely it becomes that corners will be cut which in respect to the military seems like a really bad idea.

One must also consider the economics of conscription. When we force a large number of people into the armed forces we remove the possibility of them getting jobs and being productive. This is especially harmful as in most conscription policies it's the youngest and fittest men and women who get drafted. Then you have to factor in the cost of training and supplying these troops, and it becomes clear that this isn't a very economical system (3). Next we should consider the psychological effects of giving military training to a large percentage of the population. Not every soldier reacts well to the psychological conditioning involved in basic military training, not everyone is built for it. I believe that if we begin training larger and larger numbers of people then the number of cases of violence, and mental breakdowns will also grow. Finally, I'd like to touch on the topic of human rights. It's hard for me to compare conscription to slavery, because of the history of the word all around the world. However, I feel that the comparison is not necessarily inaccurate. By telling the citizen that they have to serve in the military the nation is basically taking away any pretense of freedom, and I just cannot on any level agree with a system which does such a thing.

Finally I'd like to end with a quote from one of my favorite authors of all time:

"No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: "Come back with your shield, or on it." Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome. — Robert A. Heinlein" (4)

Water Water Everywhere Edited Edition

Recently we had a student from RPI, who was originally from Yemen, come speak to us. During the course of our discussion he brought up a topic which has fascinated me for awhile: water crises. The idea of a water crisis is that a country might, in the future, run out of water, or in some other way have their water supply crippled. To water rich citizens like ourselves this seems like an outlandish idea, but in many countries it is a definite possibility. Yemen, for example, may run out of water within the next decade (1). In Sudan 12.3 million people have no access to clean drinking water. This means that only 30% of the rural population and 40% of the urban population in Sudan actually have clean drinking water (2). Similar water quality crises can be seen in Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Tunisia (3). Other problems involve widespread drought; the shrinking of rivers, lakes and seas (take, for example, the Aral sea); and desertification. And, if you are the leader in countries which are experiencing such problems you have to ask yourself how you are going to react. Will you go to war with neighboring countries who might have more water, but risk coming off worse than you were to begin with? Do you just ignore the problem because it might not affect you personally? Or, do you attempt to trade whatever resources you might have for water?

In the future this might affect the United States as well. Not necessarily in a water shortage way, but water may become one of our more important trading commodities. We may not be the most water rich country in the world, and we have experienced several major droughts over the years. But, we are also one of the most prominent countries on the global stage. From an economic standpoint we are in a fairly strong position. This problem also poses a moral quandary. How do we approach this situation? . We could approach it from a humanitarian standpoint and just set up programs for nations to donate water to countries which are lacking. Or we could try to profit, and force other countries into trade agreements. For example, Yemen has oil reserves with recent estimates saying they are producing around 320,600 barrels per day (though their reserves are quickly running out), and they also have large natural gas reserves (4). We could easily exploit such a situation either by trading for their oil or by taking a percentage of whatever profit they make off their natural gas. Or we could even just sit back and let such situations resolve themselves. Personally I believe in a humanitarian effort, but more on that later. We can also do more in the area of desalination. In developing countries building a desalination plant, and then building an infrastructure to transport the water all over the country can be incredibly expensive. But if they can get the infrastructure and plants they need in place, and if they are located near the ocean, and then make sure that they can power it properly, then they can have basically an unlimited supply of water.

Personally, I feel that in this situation a global approach would be best. I feel that the US should set up an organization who's sole purpose is to persuade water rich countries, like Finland, to donate water to countries that are lacking. This way all the countries of the world have a chance to donate, and the US wouldn't have to be the only one. We are only 32nd in the world in terms of water reserves (5). There are other consideration to make, however, on both sides of the equation. Yemen, for example, is facing an insurgency of Al Qaeda, and the government is trying to quell a rebel uprising (6). We must also be wary of corruption in foreign governments. The student who came and talked to us, for example, admitted that he believes the Yemeni government to be corrupt. Finally, the US must consider its own self-interests before acting. But, who knows? Maybe someday we will be exporting as many barrels of water as the barrels of oil we import.

Water Water Everywhere

Recently we had a student from RPI come speak to us who was originally from Yemen. During the course of our discussion he brought up a topic which has fascinated me for awhile: water crises. The idea that a country might, in the future, run out of water, or in some other way have their water supply crippled. To water rich citizens like ourselves this seems like an outlandish idea, but in many countries it is a definite possibility. Yemen, for example, may run out of water within the next decade (1). In Sudan 12.3 million people have no access to clean drinking water. This means that only 30% of the rural population and 40% of the urban population in Sudan actually have clean drinking water (2). Similar water quality crises can be seen in Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Tunisia (3). Other problems involve widespread drought, the shrinking of rivers, lakes and seas (take, for example, the Aral sea), and desertification. And, if you are the leader, or leaders in countries which are experiencing such problems you have to ask yourself how you are going to react. Will you go to war with neighboring countries who might have more water, but risk coming off worse than you were to begin with? Do you just ignore the problem because it might not affect you personally? Or, do you attempt to trade whatever resources you might have for water?

In the future this might affect the United States as well. Not necessarily in a water shortage way, but water may become one of our more important trading commodities. We may not be the most water rich country in the world, and we have experienced several major droughts over the years. But, we are also one of the most prominent countries on the global stage. From an economic standpoint we are in a fairly strong position. This problem also poses a moral quandary. How do we approach this situation? . We could approach it from a humanitarian standpoint and just set up programs for nations to donate water to countries which are lacking. Or we could try to profit, and force other countries into trade agreements. For example, Yemen has oil reserves with recent estimates saying they are producing around 320,600 barrels per day (though their reserves are quickly running out), and they also have large natural gas reserves (4). We could easily exploit such a situation either by trading for their oil or by taking a percentage of whatever profit they make off their natural gas. Or we could even just sit back and let such situations resolve themselves. Personally I believe in a humanitarian effort, but that's neither here nor there. We can also do more in the area of desalination. In developing countries building a desalination plant, and then building an infrastructure to transport the water all over the country can be incredibly expensive. But if they can get the infrastructure and plants they need in place then, and if they are located near the ocean, then they can have basically an unlimited supply of water.

Clearly, there are many considerations on both sides of this equation in this case, and the countries involved have many other problems to face. Yemen is facing an insurgency of Al Qaeda, and are also facing down a rebel insurgency (5). Sudan has the conflict in Darfur. Both nations also face widespread corruption in their governments. The student who came and talked so admitted so himself. The US must also consider it's own self-interests before acting. But, who knows? Maybe someday we will be exporting as many barrels of water as barrels of oil.

1. http://www.al-bab.com/bys/articles/ward01.htm

2.http://blueplanetrun.org/youthboard/sudan

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Crisis#Overview_of_regions_suffering_crisis_impacts

4.http://www.indexmundi.com/yemen/oil_production.html

5.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125417307132347371.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Ramblings on The State of Religious Freedom in America

Recently in our METS New Visions class we had a speaker who talked to us about the persecution of the Falun Dafa group in China (it's a very interesting subject, and I would encourage you to do your own research into the matter). Our speaker got me thinking about the state of religious freedom in America. For example, one of the first things that occurred to me is what exactly is a religion? How do we legally define a religion? The current US, and International Laws aren't very clear (I refer you to the Harvard Journal of Human Rights http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml). We know that in America we have Freedom of Religion, but does this mean that to be protected by this particular clause that you have to have a religion, or does this also protect non-belief? What about the non-religious? I think the problem lies in the wording of said clause. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." The only problem is that Founding Fathers left no indication of how this clause was to be executed. They left behind no defining characteristics of a religion to help guide us, nor whether this also meant that those who do not believe in a higher power should be able to enjoy the same protections as those who do. I think, however, that in a country in which 20% of it's citizens view themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-religious (that's 60,000,000 people to put this in perspective http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=281&article=0) that we need a clearer idea of who exactly is being protected by the First Amendment. I think that we need to clarify the Freedom of Religion clause to be a Freedom of Belief clause. This would mean that you can believe, or not believe in any crazy crap you want, and that the government will protect your right to believe in it.

I think what I would like most would be an actual amendment to the clause (not a true amendment but a re-wording if you will). I also understand, however, that such an action would most likely be resented by the general populace and would also take up valuable time which could be better spent elsewhere. So, in a realistic sense the best I think I can hope for is for the Supreme Court to set a precedent in which the Freedom of Religion clause is interpreted as more of a Freedom of Belief clause. I know that to many this would seem to be a non-issue. Most would say, "What's the big deal? Clearly atheists, agnostics, etc. etc. deserve the same rights as any other group, and they are protected by the First Amendment," and I would agree. I personally believe that atheists are protected under the First Amendment, and that the Founding Fathers intended it that way. But we are also living in a nation in which atheists are the most distrusted of all groups (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/) I don't think it's unreasonable to wish for a little more security. I feel I should let the reader know that I myself am an atheist so I'm not just making this up as I go along.

Now, I would like to expand upon what I believe about government intervention in religious affairs. As I've stated I believe that every person is entitled to his or her own beliefs, but within reason. What I mean is that I believe a person should be allowed to do what ever they wish as long as they are not harming others. Now when I apply this to a religious group what I mean is say the group doesn't believe in modern medicine and they allow a child (who can't choose his own medical care) to die then that group should be held responsible. On the other hand if a group believes that suicide is perfectly reasonable and a person in the group (who is of sound mind) chooses to end their life then I see nothing wrong with this. In the first case I believe it is the job of the government to protect the child, and I in the second I believe it is the job of the government to protect the person's right to end their own life. I say this because clearly if we look at China's persecution of the Falun Dafa then we see an example of a country's government going to far, but I also feel that religions shouldn't be allowed to run wild and do whatever they wish.

I feel now that I must state that personally I've never had any run-ins with persecution. I've never been discriminated against for my beliefs and I've never seen anybody be persecuted personally. Relatively speaking, I've led a really easy life. So, instead, all I can do is observe the world around me and form conclusions based on those observations. And some of the things I've observed are troubling. For example, I look at China, and I see that they're able to persecute a group (in this case the Falun Dafa) and be able to get away with simply because of how powerful they are. Or, I look at America and I can see the hate that a lot of people are filled with (for example watch this video of a man walking through a health care protest with a sign which merely states a view opposing that of the protestors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc ). In a world where persecution is a very real threat I don't think that security is an unreasonable desire.