The Myth/Meme, Dilemma of Scarcity

Have you ever seen the phrase, "Hurry while supplies last"? Have you read headlines about food shortages, oil depletion, the water crisis, lack of land? Is the notion of scarcity, real, or fabricated?

Perhaps with respect to a specific consumer item, say an iPhone, it is easy to understand that if only so many are made, then supply is limited. Regarding oil, if they only pump X barrels, then we can see that there will be only so much to go around. If we pollute the water, then there is only so much drinking water that can be consumed. It is easy to understand that there is only so many acres of agricultural land and therefore, only so much food can be produced.

If we view the world parochially, then the notion of scarcity may make sense. Of course, it is also easy to understand that supplies can be manipulated and shortages artificially created. A company make make only so many phones, computers, cars, etc. in order to keep supply low and prices high. In fact, this tends to be the rule, not the exception.

But suppose we take a more worldly and even universal view. There is no shortage of energy on the planet or in the universe. In fact, everything is made of energy. So is it really a question of is there enough oil, or is it simply a matter or trying to determine how to utilize all of the free/abundant energy that exists everywhere? Recent articles in the Huffington Post about teens that invented a flashlight that runs on body heat and on using ambient energy (from radio waves, satellite transmissions, TV, etc) to power small electronic devices are but  small examples of the limitless potential of energy that exists. Of course, we have all heard of Tesla and his free energy devices that have remained hidden. The earth herself is a giant electric generator who is also bathed in electromagnetic energy from the sun and the cosmos. Energy shortage, really?

Okay, but there must be a shortage of food. Well, if you mean cows, corn and rice, you could make the case that there's only so much or that only so much could be produced. However, if we think in terms of sustenance and not pigs, sheep, or grain, it should be a bit clearer that there are limitless ways to sustain life. Science is constantly discovering new super foods, and I don't mean the fake crap they produce in factories using nano-technology, that, while not pizza, they are life sustaining.

Land shortage? Okay, but is there a space shortage? New futuristic building designs are not only energy self-sufficient, but also food self-sufficient; using roof tops, terraces and aqua-culture to grow food. Possibilities are endless.

There is no scarcity other than those self-created or imposed for the purpose of keeping profits high. So what's the dilemma? The concept of limitless supply only works IF you take the universal view. Yes, there is only so much iron on the planet. If it's used up, it's gone. But, it can be forever recycled. There are only so many diamonds. If they're hoarded, they're gone. But so what? We can value something else. There is only so much MONEY? Not true, the Fed has been printing all kinds of money to bailout/give to the banks. We can print all the money we want. It has no intrinsic value other than what we say it has. Water? If all the water is polluted, you will die. But we can stop polluting and we can clean up the water. It is even possible to extract water from desert air and companies have devices that can now do that. Ever hear of 'star water?' It's worth looking up.

The dilemma is just that with a parochial and selfish world view, there are limits, there is lack, and some will have and some will not. But, if humanity as a whole takes a broader view of life, its resources its functions and its requirements, then we discover that we live in an infinite and limitless world in which all things are possible.

A BIG THUMBS DOWN MR. PRESIDENT

While I still maintain that Obama was the better choice in 2012, I will have to admit that he has been a disappointment on environmental issues. It just goes to show that $$$ speaks louder than protests and that the real power remains on the Wall Street throne. Nothing new, really, but sad. Even worse, these types of 'caves' to monied interests are kind of 'forever.' Destroy the environment and it leaves a lasting scar. Some actions are simply not reversible,or,alter future event permanently.

IS THE U.S. ECONOMY UNDER TERRORIST ATTACK?

Is the American economy under a terrorist attack? Most U.S. economic indicators are down. Consumer confidence is low; gas prices are high; food costs are soaring; unemployment is on the rise; the value of the dollar is declining; mortgage foreclosures are still rising, and basically, the economy is a mess. Is this just a normal cycle or is something else driving the downturn?
Most of what is happening to the U.S economy makes little sense and the turmoil seems self-induced. Banks and mortgage companies did not have to raise home interests even though the rates were not fixed. As soon as they saw what was happening, any rational mind would have stopped raising rates and re-evaluated its impact before it got out of control. It benefits no one to have banks foreclosing. Did they think that by doing so there would be thousands of more homebuyers waiting in the wings to scoff up the empty houses?
We all know what is happening to oil prices. Economists tell us that prices are usually driven by such factors as inventories, demand, political unrest, climate, value of the dollar and speculation. While these are often fabricated excuses to raise prices, the facts do not line up. According to most reports, inventories are fine; demand is actually down; political disruptions have been minimal and the climate has not recently destroyed or halted too many drilling operations. The dollar is certainly off, partly due to the oil issue but the key factor appears to be speculation. According to most analysts, it is speculation that id fueling the current absurd increases in oil. These same analysts also say that the speculation makes little sense and does appear to be driven by normal standards of supply and demand. The obvious question is who are these speculators and do they have a hidden agenda?
On the food front things are getting progressively worse. Prices rose 4% in 2007 and they are expected to rise at least another 4% in 2008. We have seen food riots in places such as Mexico, India, Italy, Indonesia and Africa. The U.N. is warning of massive food shortages as the ravages of global climate change and the use of food as biofuel greatly reduce world food supplies. There are persistent attempts by U.S truckers to stage a national strike over diesel costs which all but cripple deliveries of food to markets and many on fixed incomes are facing choices between food or medications. Here in Maine it is quite possible that the lobster and fishing industry will be decimated this summer by soaring fuel costs.
In the face of all of this negative news we see little or no public policy aimed at addressing these issues. Record oil profits go unchecked, food and energy costs are spiraling out of control, seasonal jobs are severely threatened and yet nothing is happening to deal with these issues. Scientists are reporting faster than expected rises in greenhouse gases and polar ice is also melting at unanticipated rates. Assuming an active storm season this summer, all of these factors combine to further exacerbate an unstable economic climate.
It is clear that things like environmental disasters may be out of our immediate abilities to change. However, the economy seems to be shooting itself in the foot and nothing is being done to attend to the victim; namely, the consumer. The underlying question is who is doing the shooting? Who stands to gain by all of this turmoil? Who is pulling the economic strings causing havoc to the economy? Are there “economic terrorists” bent on disrupting the world economy?

PETS, PEOPLE AND TOYS, OH MY!

First pet food, then people food and toys; what’s next? You have to love globalization and all of its wonderful ramifications. Actually, when I first heard of globalization I thought it was a wonderful concept. The idea that trade barriers between nations would disappear opening the doors to an infinite array of goods from other cultures and nations appeared exciting. In the absence of high tariffs exotic products from around the world would be at our fingertips.

What got lost in the translation? I guess others had an entirely different view of globalization in mind. To the corporations, it meant being able to hire children and adults for pennies a day in order to make their goods. Without high taxes and in the absence of foreign environmental and labor laws, companies could now produce products for little cost abroad and get them back here cheaply. Rather than importing foreign products, we began to import our own products to the detriment of domestic labor.

Of course, not only did it hurt U.S. workers, it opened the door to massive abuse of labor abroad. Hungry for jobs, foreign governments courted American producers at the expense of their own people. And, now, as we all know, the majority of products that we buy are made in China or other Asian and Latin American countries. To keep costs low these nations have few laws protecting their workers and little in the way of environmental rules or product safety standards. We all know the old adage; “what goes around, comes around.” So here we are, dead pets, poison in our foods and now lead in our children’s toys.

Of course, these are only the things that have been discovered-to date. What other product safety issues are lurking in our future? What else are we using or consuming that may harm our future generations? Isn’t time to say enough? As a product of the 60’s and 70’s I was hooked on the “small is beautiful” concept. Local produce, local jobs, local supplies of energy and local cultures all interacting to create a wonderful whole was very appealing. We need to return to this concept.

Energy issues must be addressed regionally and even locally. In some places the answer may be hydro, or wind or solar while others may see biomass or other alternatives. Those that can work everywhere can be shared but solutions cannot all be universal. Even from an energy safety perspective, differing systems are easier to protect than one large grid. This also holds for food production. The conscious effort to destroy the family farm was the worst decision to ever hit our agricultural system. I want beans and carrots from Maine, not Mexico-no offense intended. Corporate farming is a bust. The food supply is too concentrated in the hands of the few. Further, if bad weather or disease strikes these corporate farms, our food supplies are gone. Local food means a safer supply and one that can be closely monitored. Who knows what has been put on peppers from Latin America or put into beef from Argentina?

Look at the recent snafu in the housing market. Why should a credit squeeze in the U.S. send Asian stocks tumbling? We know the answer and the answer highlights the problem. Who wants their mortgage held by a bank in Hong Kong? Why are we permitting stock markets to merge? Why are we allowing the continued concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few?

We need a new concept of globalization. It should come to mean a world that shares ideas, cultures, information and solutions. Globalization must bring people together to find common solutions to common problems and not the continued exploitation of the many by the few. A “small is beautiful” concept with a global perspective is the only way we will get through these troubled times. It is time to wake up people. If we do not approach the coming changes with a renewed sense of cooperation instead of competition, we will get what we deserve.

IS IT SAFE TO EAT?

In my article called “The Poisoning of America” I talked about the issues regarding the safety of America’s food supply in light of the recent concern over imported grains from China that were contaminated with melamine. The recent Washington Post article by Rick Weiss added more concern to this issue since the actual contamination was found to be in not just the gluten but also wheat flour. Apparently, this flour has also made its way into food for fish farms raising new concerns that fish stocks may also be contaminated.
According to Rep. Rosa DeLauro who chairs the subcommittee that funds the FDA, “Our food safety system, is broken.”
This is not good news for the American consumer. “Our food system is broken” is actually an understatement. Not only are we being poisoned from without, but much of our problem comes from within our own food supply and processing system. The following is startling news regarding food produced in the U.S. The information comes from the UNEP/UNESCO:

Are consumers at risk when eating meat from animals that have been treated with growth-promoting hormones? Are women in particular at a higher risk from ingestion of hormone-laden meat?
· In the United States, every year approximately 36 million cattle are raised to provide beef for US consumers; 2/3 of these cattle (about 24 million cows) are given hormones to help make them grow faster.; (1)
· According to the Cattlemen's Beef Association, 90% of all US feedlot cattle are hormone implanted;
· According to expert scientists appointed by the European Union, the use of growth hormones in food animals poses a potential risk to consumers' health. The scientists reported that hormone residues found in meat from these animals can disrupt the consumer's hormone balance, cause developmental problems, interfere with the reproductive system, and even lead to the development of cancer;
· Children and pregnant women are most susceptible to these negative health effects. Hormone residues in beef are also thought to cause the early onset of puberty in girls. This puts girls at greater risk of developing breast cancer and other forms of cancer; (3)
· As a result of these health risks, the European Union has banned the use of substances having a hormonal action for growth promotion in farm animals, and has prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988; (4)
· The US and Canada contested the prohibition and in 1997 a panel of the WTO ruled that the EU measure was not in line with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS); (5)
· In April 2004, revelations that up to 90% of US veal calves are being fed synthetic testosterone illegally sent a shock wave through the meat industry, causing a government crackdown and new worries about the impact of hormones on the food supply. In interviews with the media, veal industry officials said that calves have been fed growth hormones for decades. Officials with the Food and Drug Administration, however, say this has never been legal and the safety of this practice has not been tested. (6)
Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues that are found in cow manure…
· When manure is excreted, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater, thereby harming local ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of hormone residues; recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the reproductive capacity and egg production of fish;
· A study of cows treated with melengestrol acetate (one of the artificial growth hormones approved for use in the US) revealed that 12% of the hormone passed directly through the cows into their manure.
The British newspaper, The Guardian also weighed in on the additive issue. In a may 8th article by felicity Lawrence, she presented some early findings from a study at Southampton University.

“Researchers at Southampton University have tested combinations of synthetic colourings and preservative that an average child might consume in a day to measure what effect they had on behaviour. A source at the university told the food industry's magazine the Grocer last week that their results supported findings first made seven years ago that linked the additives to behavioural problems, such as temper tantrums, poor concentration and hyperactivity, and to allergic reactions.”

The article went on to say that some of the additives used are banned in the U.S. but there can be little doubt that the issues discussed in the British study are also major issues that appear in American youth. There is little doubt that American children are obese, prematurely sexually active, plagued by an increasing array of behavioral and allergic disorders and they are certainly hyperactive. We are poisoning our own children and ourselves with concoctions of chemicals and hormones that will prove to be our undoing.

There is a slight ray of hope, but it is scant. It seems that the dairy industry may be listening to consumers and at least taking hormones out of our milk supply. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 7th notes the following:

“Richard Cotta, CEO of California Dairies Inc., the nation's second-largest dairy cooperative, is guided by a simple business philosophy: "If you want milk with little blue dots, you'll have it, as long as you are willing to pay for it.''
So, when a string of major customers, including supermarket giant Safeway, came to his co-op saying they would no longer accept milk from cows treated with a genetically engineered growth hormone, the co-op bowed to the inevitable.”

This is a start but there is no question, as Rep. DeLauro says that our system is broken. Who needs terrorists when we have our own corporate terrorists’ right here at home? Is our food safe? Let’s support the Rep. DeLauro’s call for reform. We may have lost several generations to chemical poisoning, let’s not loose any more!

THE POISONING OF AMERICA

First the dogs, then the cats and now the people! We are being poisoned by imported food. As dogs and cats were dying an outcry went out concerning the import of wheat and rice from China. We then found that the contaminated food, containing melamine, was fed to hogs and over three thousand were scheduled to be euthanized. We are now told that the contaminated food is in our poultry but the FDA says not to worry. Here is a portion of a warning that was just released by the FDA:

“IA #99-29, 4/27/07, IMPORT ALERT #99-29, "DETENTION WITHOUT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF ALL VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA FOR ANIMAL OR HUMANFOOD USE DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF MELAMINE AND/OR MELAMINE ANALOGS"TYPE OF ALERT: Detention Without Physical Examination (Countrywide)(Note: This import alert represents the Agency's current guidance to FDA field personnel regarding the manufacturer(s) and/or products(s) at issue. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person, and does not operate to bind FDA or the public).PRODUCTS: Wheat Gluten Rice Gluten Rice Protein Rice Protein Concentrate Corn Gluten Corn Gluten Meal Corn By-Products Soy Protein Soy Gluten Proteins (includes amino acids and protein hydrosylates) Mung Bean ProteinPROBLEM: Poisonous or Deleterious Substance Unfit For Food Unsafe Food Additive.”

A very simple question that comes to mind is why do we import these things from China? We have the best agricultural land in the world and our farmers have fed millions outside of U.S. borders. Do we not produce enough wheat, corn, soy and rice to feed our nation? Why have we put the American citizens at risk by importing these products from a foreign land? The FDA says that only 1% of imported food is inspected. In this “age of terrorism” does this make any sense? With all of our imported food, inspection should be a top national priority. It is in our food supply that we are most vulnerable. Most foreign countries from which we import food do not have adequate food safety and inspection programs. Further, are there really tests that can detect bacteria, viruses or poison in our food supply? While there may be such tests, if only 1% of the imports are inspected, where does that leave the American public?While globalism may have its place some in some industries, food may not be one of them. Americans are getting increasingly ill through tainted foods. A whole new battery of food related illnesses and allergies have arisen from food that is not local, nor is not even grown in this country. We are no longer able to develop natural immunities by consuming foods that are natural to our environment.It is time to rethink our national food policies and support our local farmers and stop importing foods that we can easily grow here. The contaminated food from China is but one example of what may happen if someone is really serious about killing Americans without having to blow up buildings or highjack airplanes. And shame on the FDA for not getting this food off of the market. How can they even have the gall to say that the little bit of poison will not hurt us? What effect might this food have on our children? How much more food contamination has gone undetected?It seems that the Bush Administration is more concerned about putting corn in the gas tank than ensuring that Americans are not exposed to the deplorable scandal impacting what all of must do, eat.