Ensuring Conservation

This post finishes the previous post, so read that one first. The cradle-to-cradle production system described here is lifted entirely from the book Cradle to Cradle.

The Confines of the Planet
In the previous post I made the case for conserving diversity of both culture and nature, and in this post I'll propose some actions we should take to do so. Before we examine possible actions, however, we must acknowledge certain constraints. The first is that natural and cultural diversity should grow, not be destroyed. Secondly, the Earth is a closed system in terms of natural resources, but the energy received from the Sun vastly exceeds our current needs. The only possible long-term production system, called "cradle-to-cradle" production recycles resources and uses renewable energy, and such a system would sustain our growth for centuries, if not millenia. The purpose of the Sustainability movement is, or should be, to convert a linear production system into a cyclical one.

Cradle to Cradle Production
The best sources of renewable energy we have developed are solar, wind, and geothermal, and and many companies, including even Google, are investing millions of dollars to make renewable energy competitive, so switching our energy production is a matter of time, investment, and will. Cycling resources is a more complicated matter, but it too is within our grasp. Nature has been recycling nutrients since life first began, and does so far more efficiently than we could manage, so all organic resources should be returned to nature. This means that our clothing will be compostable, and the chemicals used in its production will be non-toxic and biodegradable.

In our current cradle-to-grave production system, valuable inorganic resources are lost, meaning that further resources must be extracted at great economical and environmental cost. For instance, the steel in your car is a high-quality alloy with specific desirable properties. If the steel is recycled at all, it is added during steel production to produce low-quality steel. The desirable properties and expensive additives are lost. Heavy metals like lead are highly toxic, and their safe disposal is very expensive, so often they are not disposed of safely, making it very expensive for everyone else. If these important metals were recycled, both money and nature would be saved.

The Triple-Bottom Line
One of the best tools of sustainable development is the triple-bottom line, where ecology and equity are given the same priority as economy. Why is a triple-bottom line necessary? A company that performs a cost-benefit analysis will ignore any costs that are externalized: costs that they should pay, but that they can pass on to society, for instance by dumping heavy metals as I described above. Many mining operations proceed with the full intention of passing the cost onto the government: for a proposed mine, a company is created by one of the large mining companies, who then underestimate the clean-up costs, extract the ore, and declare bankruptcy when clean-up time comes. The profits go to the large mining company while the costs are paid by the government's environmental agency.

In practice, ecological and social impact cannot be calculated for a specific development. Therefore, rather than developers having a literal triple-bottom line, the concept means that developers examine social and environmental impacts in detail and balance those against the economic benefit. This does not guarantee absolute sustainability, but it provides a way for development to incorporate sustainability, so that the end result is more sustainable.

Confronting Overpopulation
One of the consequences of the constraints is that societies cannot grow rapidly and be sustainable, because each extra human consumes extra resources, so Amazonian rainforest, with its indigenous species and people, is converted to grass and cows, and diversity is destroyed. Therefore we must try to limit our growth until we reach the point that we can produce biomass from inorganic materials (there's plenty of inorganic carbon and hydrogen.) Overpopulation occurs when resources are too scarce to support the population. We all know the third world kind of overpopulation, but the first world is also overpopulated because we are living beyond the capacities of the planet. Therefore our first course of action should be to limit our own consumption to sane levels. After we have started to limit our own consumption, we should look to end overpopulation in the third world.

It's impossible to have sustained overpopulation in a region unless resources enter that region from elsewhere. Grain surpluses in the first world feed overpopulation in the third world. One highly beneficial action would be to end agricultural subsidies in the developed world and invest in the agriculture of the developing world. By subsidizing agriculture in the developed world, we limit the productivity of agriculture in the developing world, ensuring a country imports our grain if it can, or receives food aid if it cannot. Food aid is problematic because although it saves many lives, domestic farmers cannot compete with free, and the region is unable to sustain itself. By investing in agriculture in the developing world, we can help families become self-sufficient, reduce famine in those areas, and ensure that food aid is only provided when it is necessary. When death rates go down and incomes go up, birth rates also go down because having more children is no longer necessary to survive. By first improving our own habits, countries that develop do not adopt our excessive consumption, and the stress on the Earth decreases.

Eternal Optimism
As I hope my first post made clear, the main problems threatening our species existence result from our destruction of diversity, so conserving biological and cultural diversity is an immense task. I am, and always shall be, optimistic, and I consider my optimism justified. Never in our history have we been faced with such immense obstacles, and should we succeed humanity will be more prosperous and enlightened than ever before. The consequences of failure are horrifying, but I reject the idea that we will fail because with those terrible consequences in mind, we must and shall do what is right. Hopefully, having read this, you will go and prove that my optimism is justified.

The Importance of Diversity

We are at a point in history of unprecedented destruction of both the environment and culture that threatens our survival as a species. To solve these problems, we must first understand their roots, and then figure out how to solve them. This post explains the causes of the problem, the next deals with possible solutions.

Living within Nature
I became a devout believer in environmental conservation when I saw E. O. Wilson's presentation on biodiversity. Click on the link, watch the presentation, and you will understand why conservation is important, because he explains it much better than I can. I'm serious, go watch it now. If you're reading this, you've got spare time to watch possibly the most important presentation I've seen. As he explains, our knowledge of Earth and its inhabitants is dwarfed by what we don't yet understand. We only know 1% of the bacteria species that are estimated to exist, and our knowledge of fungi is scarcely better. Only recently have we discovered that our efforts are having any negative impact whatsoever, and now we see mass-extinctions, extensive pollution, degradation of land, and global warming.

Diversity is important because it makes for a robust system. Life has existed for 3.7 billion years with continued expansion because it regulates itself. Every species occupies a niche, and if that species expands beyond its niche, the other species will respond and push it back in. That niche can grow and intrude on other species, but only if environmental conditions are favourable. Diversity ensures that if environmental conditions turn unfavourable for the majority of species, they will be favourable for a minority of species, who will then expand and diversify, ensuring the ecosystem survives indefinitely.

In the Agricultural Revolution, we learned how to alter our environmental conditions, so that our niche was no longer relevant. Since then, our culture has been pursuing a path of absolute mastery, but since we do not understand the complex system we are trying to alter, we have caused considerable damage to diversity in the process. Becoming absolute masters means filling the role that diversity plays in keeping ecosystems healthy, which requires a complete understanding of every aspect of the system. Those who believe that we do not need to change our ways do not realize how complex the system they think we should master really is. Our continued survival depends on realizing that we have to life within nature.

The Need for Cultural Diversity
Ethnological conservation first appeared as a serious issue when I saw this presentation several months ago. His argument, supported by stunning photos and stories, is that each indigenous culture, with its unique language and mythology, is an invaluable expression of the human spirit, that our culture needs their knowledge and perspectives. I only fully understood this argument when I read Ishmael, and I now understand that cultural diversity is just as necessary as biodiversity. Indigenous cultures have survived in their ecosystems for thousands of years, and would continue to survive if we weren't destroying their habitat. History is littered with young and stupid cultures that have brought own their own downfall, and the old cultures are the smart ones that have survived. If we assume that ours is the only relevant culture, then we'd better hope that we're a lot smarter than we appear, because we appear to be heading towards disaster.

Fortunately, if I understand the issue correctly, cultural and environmental degradation are caused by similar factors: marginalization of the culture leads to apathy, which allows habitat to be destroyed. Once we realize the true value of every species and culture, we will have to care, and we will have to act. My next post suggests some of the actions we will have to take.

Some Brief Points about Iran

What's this? An update? How surprising! Actually, I've been planning an update for a while, and have a post almost done, but I realized I could write a quick political post about Iran and get back into the swing of updating.

There is evidence that the U.S. may be planning a military strike against Iran. One of the possible pretexts is the resolution based by the Senate declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, making Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. There's no evidence that the Revolutionary Guard has supplied insurgent groups with arms, while there is evidence that external support for these groups has declined. Iraq is occupied by a foreign power, and that the U.S. is the largest donor of military aid, so criticizing Iran for aiding insurgent groups and meddling in Iraqi affairs is quite ridiculous.

The main reason for war is Iran's nuclear weapons program, which is allowed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that both the U.S. and Iran have signed. Although Iran has been fully cooperating with the IAEA, the U.S. has ignored the treaty and is researching new weapons and keeping its old ones. The fact that the main obstacle to getting a nuclear bomb is enrichment to 5% is concerning, but this calls for a new treaty, not economic sanctions or military actions. Iran is well within its rights, and the U.S. has no legitimacy to tell them to stop.

Military action against Iran, although still disastrous, would consist of air strikes rather than invasion, because the U.S. Army is already stretched in occupying Iraq. Iran would therefore not fall into the same violence and chaos that Iraq faces. I think that the worst consequences would actually be in Iraq, where resentment of U.S. occupation would increase even further. Violence would increase, and withdrawal would happen more quickly and chaotically. Violence would also rise in Pakistan, where fundamentalist forces would benefit from anger against the U.S. and its allies. Thankfully, I don't see much benefit for the Bush administration in this action. However, the Bush administration might nonetheless be desperate enough to whip up support for its foreign policy that it would attack Iran. For now, I hope it doesn't come to that.

More posts to follow! And they won't be political, so you don't have to ignore them.

Digitial Music Distribution

Note:I know this post is long, so if you're not interested about the recording industry, skip down to the list below and read how you can ethically consume music.

Major record labels are slowly but inexorably dying. Historically, they played an important part in the production and distribution of an album because the costs were way too high for a band to pay, but these costs have fallen far enough that a band can produce and distribute its own album. Now, they provide the marketing necessary for most bands to make it into the mainstream, and earn their profits from the resulting CD sales and recoup their costs from artists.

A simplified economics model would predict that labels sell zero CDs. The cost of digital music distribution is almost fixed- selling an extra copy basically costs zero compared to all the other money you've spent. Therefore the cheapest way to deliver music is electronically, and this will be the only one that consumers use, so all music will be downloaded rather than bought as CDs. The assumptions of the model aren't true, which is why CDs are still sold, but we're moving towards digital distribution, and in their present state, record labels can't live without CD sales.

The arrangement that record labels have with bands also does not entirely make sense any more. Currently, bands take out a loan from a record company, who produce an album, sell it, send the band on tour, and eventually get paid all their money back. Many bands make enough money to get by and do what they love, but only really famous bands make it rich. However, when you want to sell your house, you don't hire a construction company, you hire a real estate agent. Similarly, a band that wants to break into the mainstream needs a marketing firm, not a record label.

So what should consumers do?Here are the options:

• If you buy a CD, you get a CD, which is nice to have, the label makes a bunch of money, and the artist has some ridiculously small royalty that helps pay back some of the loan it took out.
• If you buy a song off iTunes and it's produced by a major label, 60% of the money goes to the label, 30% goes to Apple, and 10% goes to the artist (it depends on the contract, though.) It's not bad, but Apple makes about 10% profit off of every song, which is more than I think it deserves for running a music store.
• If you become an evil pirate and download ten of an artist's songs, neither the artist nor the label make any money. The artist has to pay off the loan it took out or go bankrupt. By pirating music, you're not only not giving the record label or the artist any money for their work, you're making life harder for the artist. But if you send the artist ten bucks, they get plenty of money to pay back the label with as well and plenty to buy ice cream with.
• If you go see the band in concert, buy a t-shirt and a CD, they get quite a bit of the ticket price and all of the profit from the merchandise. You get an awesome time and a memento, they get to pay off their loan and perform for a bunch of people.

If you agree that record labels are making an unfair amount of profit and that artists deserve more money for their work, then the best option is either to send the artist money or see them in concert. If you buy music off of iTunes, you're helping Apple and the label more than the artist, and if you buy a CD in a store then you're actually hurting the artist. The faster CD sales drop, the sooner we'll reach the point where most money is spent on the artist and marketing, rather than lining the pockets of rich people.

For those who are wondering what I'm doing, when I get a credit card I will:

• Send $15-20 bucks to Radiohead for their latest album, which you can download off of their website.
• Send $20 bucks to Bomb the Music Industry! for three of his free albums that I listened to a lot.
• Pay $10 for the high-quality downloadable version of an album by Brad Sucks.
• Send $10 to Harvey Danger for their free album that I also really enjoyed.
• Consider spending $20-30 at Magnatune, a record label that splits profits and costs evenly with its artists.
• Look at how I can reward all of my favourite bands for the music I've enjoyed over the years.

A Problem of Influence

I'm sure you're all aware that late last month, tens of thousands of Buddhist monks in Myanmar, also known as Burma, took to the streets in protest of the repressive military regime. I imagine that you supported their peaceful, pro-democracy cause, and would like to have helped them in some way. The main ways a country can influence another country are diplomacy, economic sanctions, and military intervention. Unfortunately, Western governments have none of these options open in Burma.

Burma's main allies are its prime economic partners, since it has little need for a military alliance. In 2006, its main trading partners were Thailand and China, so China has the most potential influence in Burma. The U.S. and E.U. have no direct influence because they've already imposed economic sanctions, and military interventions is simply out of the question. The Western countries could try and pressure China into trying to influence Burma, but even China's influence on the military junta is limited. Also, China is still nominally communist, so it will not try to pressure another regime to open dialogue with pro-democracy groups. Therefore, we cannot expect our governments to improve the situation.

On an individual level, we can boycott imports or pressure companies to divest (remove their investments) from a country. For instance, when citizens of Western nations helped end apartheid, South Africa has no other possible trading partners and was pressured to open dialogue with Nelson Mandela's political party. Unfortunately, our trade with Burma is insignificant and already restricted by sanctions, so we can't do anything as individuals.

The reasons for our inability to help the Burmese can be generalized to explain why we have trouble solving serious problems around the world. The Sudanese government, for example, can ignore demands made by the U.N. because its main export is oil to Japan and China. China will oppose any Security Council intervention in Darfur to protect its trade with Sudan, as it is also the main exporter to Sudan. From what I know of Japan, it is fairly isolationist and unlikely to give up a supply of oil, but perhaps it could be pressured into reducing its imports from Sudan.

What lessons should we draw from these situations? First, that economic sanctions should be considered very carefully, because many countries like Iran, Iraq, and Sudan have suffered the cost of the sanction and moved their trade elsewhere, and once strict sanctions are imposed, we can either pressure one of the misbehaving country's new trading partners to have a word with it, or we can invade. Second, through open dialogue and trade we can increase our influence in a country while reducing the relative influence of more neutral countries like China, India, and Japan. Finally, as we've seen in Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, and other countries around the world, military intervention must be seriously examined and must only be used once all other avenues have been exhausted.