Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In explanation of my title, I fear I’ll have to go on a bit of a digression. Let me tell three stories, about people in three different parts of our amazing planet.
STORY THE FIRST: In my early thirties, about forty years ago now, through a series of misunderstandings and coincidences I spent some time as the first mate on a sailboat in the Philippines. At one point we spent a couple months anchored up offshore from the Manila Yacht Club while we were getting some boat repairs done. As befits a young man with more testosterone than sagacity, I spent the evenings in the dives and nightclubs in the local red-light district. Not paying for the favors of the ladies of the evening, you understand, that always seemed creepy to me. Just drinking and having a good time. One of the bars had a piano. It also had what they euphemistically called “hostesses”, who I was told could be very welcoming and most hospitable in one of the upstairs rooms for a small donation to a good cause …
It became my habit that each evening after work, I would go ashore. I’d walk the six blocks or so over to the bar and play the piano for a few hours, and talk to the “hostesses” and the bartender, and watch the evening go by. After a while, I was just another fixture in the bar, I was the piano man. People coming in thought I was just part of the floor show, and I was. The management liked having me play, so they paid me … in free drinks and bar food, which was more than welcome.
And being the piano man in a “hospitality house”, isn’t that every musician’s dream of heaven?

In any case, I got to be friends with the bartenders, and with the “hostesses”, and they would tell me their stories. One of the women working there was a “hostess” named Helena. She and I got to be good friends. We were never lovers, although I wouldn’t have minded one bit. We just hung out together and had a good time in the bar, singing songs, telling stories. Sometimes on the weekends we would meet and wander around the city and she would explain to me the local customs, tell me what was going on. She taught me just enough Tagalog to get in trouble. It was great.

Figure 1. Slums in Manila
During this time, Helena kept telling me that I was rich. I always laughed and said no, no, in America I was a very poor man. And that was true—I was an itinerant sailor and fisherman and a boat bum. She just laughed back at me. But she never asked me for anything, not for one penny, not for one gift. Well, that’s not quite true. She asked me for cigarettes for her father. So I kept her old man in smokes. I figured it was the least I could do. She had her pride.
One other thing she wouldn’t do. I kept asking her to invite me over to the place where she lived. But she always refused. I wouldn’t like it, she said with her impish crooked smile. So one afternoon I decided I’d just go over there on my own. I got her address from one of the bartenders. He advised me against visiting there, saying it was in a bad section of town. I said okay. I was young. I was foolish. What did I know?
When I told the taxi driver where I was going, he turned around in his seat and looked at me. “Are you sure you want to go there”, he asked? “Yeah I’m sure”, I said with more certainty than I felt. “OK”, he said, “but you gotta pay me the money now, I’m not waiting around once we get there” … I gave him the money and off we went.
Helena’s place turned out to be located in a shantytown covering an entire city block. The buildings had been demolished at some point in the past and then abandoned. An entire community had sprung up there over the years. As soon as I got out of the taxi, the driver sped away. I turned around and was confronted by the most astounding warren of structures that I had ever seen.
Every possible building material was on display. Concrete blocks, short sticks of wood, old highway signs, flattened out tin cans, cardboard of every color and description, car doors and windows, random bits of glass, hunks of corrugated iron, shipping pallets, foam from appliance boxes. And this potpourri of materials was all strapped and held and cajoled into staying together by a motley assortment of rusty nails, bits of wire, rubber straps, pieces of leather, sections of vine, lengths of duct tape, strips of cloth, the variety of fasteners was endless. There were buildings on top of buildings added onto buildings built underneath buildings.
I asked the first person I came to where Helena lived. He gave me a series of instructions that, as near as I could understand, included obscure directives like “go over that direction except stay this side” and “don’t go under the third walkway, go where the man is selling balut” and “be careful to avoid the other opening”. All of these directions were delivered in what to a casual passerby would have passed for English, but on closer examination appeared to have been assembled from random phrases culled from instruction manuals.
I thanked the man and wandered off in the general direction he had indicated. I stopped at intervals to get new sets of partially intelligible instructions from random strangers. These led me through and over and into more of the 3-D maze. The way to her house went by means of a bizarre collection of passageways that were neither streets nor alleys. I could not tell public from private areas. Eyes looked out of every opening. I knew that I could not find my way back out without a guide. The passageway wandered over and around structures, at points seemingly going through people’s back yards with life in full swing. At other points, the way passed along a ditch running foul sewage, complete with a strange assortment of floating objects that did not bear close inspection. After accidentally looking at one particular piece of flotsam, I repented and quickly switched to carefully looking at the other side of the path, and I eschewed further reckless eyeballing until I left that ditch far behind.
Now, people mistake the Philippines for a nation. In reality, it is much more like a really big family with a bunch of kinda strange relatives. Not bad, just strange. And of course, on this city block of houses-in-wonderland, everybody knew everybody. The nature of communications in the area was such that by the time that the kindness of strangers had brought me to where Helena lived, she had heard the news already and had gotten spruced up and was prepared to meet me at the door. She invited me into what she explained was her aunt’s house. She had a room in the back. She offered to show it to me.
We stepped inside her room. Of course, we could not close the door, that was not proper … nor all that practical given the miniature size of the room. But it wouldn’t have made much difference, there was no privacy. You could hear everything everywhere, the walls were paper-thin. And I suppose that shouldn’t have been surprising, because one wall was actually made of paper, but I was surprised by that detail nonetheless. I noted in passing that the paper wall was made up of pasted together advertising posters for Hindi Bollywood movies, lending a pleasant, almost carnival atmosphere to the place.
Her room was tiny. A small sleeping pallet took up almost all of the available floor space. Inside the room were all of Helena’s worldly belongings. They consisted of a small wooden box which contained a few dresses and blouses and undergarments, and another smaller wooden box which contained a few items of makeup, a mirror, and some little trinkets and costume jewelry that obviously were precious to her. Other than that, there was one pair of shoes, and a cross and a picture of Jesus on the wall. Oh, there was the cloth pallet on which she slept, but that scrap of sewn-together rags likely belonged to her auntie. And that was the sum total of her possessions, all contained in a minuscule room with one wall made of paper …
That was it … that was all that she owned. A few dresses and a picture of Jesus. Now I understood why she thought I was rich. Because by her terms, I most assuredly was rich. I was incredibly wealthy in her world.
I talked with her a while there in the house, and with her aunt. Her uncle was out working. Her aunt had a small sewing business in her house. Life was not bad, life was not good, life was just life. Helena didn’t like her work, but that was the only job she could find, she had no education and no skills. And it paid the bills. Helena translated, her aunt spoke only Tagalog. We laughed some. They had a roof over their heads, albeit one of flattened tin cans laid as shingles. They had each other. We watched the almost-liquid warmth of the Manila gloaming slowly pouring over the city, and we soaked in the last rays of the day.
After while, Helena showed me how to get back to the street, and found me a taxi. I wouldn’t have been able to find the street without her, and no taxi would have stopped for me there at dusk, but they knew Helena. She left me there, she had to go back and get changed and get to work. I said I was going back to the ship, I’d see her later that evening, play some piano.
In the taxi, on my way back to the ship, I reflected on how incredibly wealthy I actually was. I finally realized, with some embarrassment, why she had laughed so heartily when I was so foolish and naive as to claim that I was poor. The only remaining mystery to me was how her laughter at my blindness had been so free of even the slightest hint of reproach for my colossal bumbling ignorance.
STORY THE SECOND: Fast forward five years. I’m working in sub-Saharan Africa, in Senegal. My workmate and I are in some godforsaken village out near the Kaolack salt flats. A 3-D relief map of the turf would look like a flat sheet of paper—it’s the land god stepped on. We get invited to dinner by some farmer, and by custom, we cannot refuse. He lives in the proverbial mud hut, with his wife, a scad of kids, a wooden planting stick, a wooden mortar and pestle for grinding grain, a three-rock firepit out back for cooking, a leaky roof, and not much else.
Having grown up on a ranch, I automatically note when we get there that he has two scrawny chickens wandering the yard. When we go into the house, he confers for a moment with his wife. She disappears. I hear squawking. I realize the man now has one scrawny chicken wandering the yard. The farmer and my associate and I drink sickly sweet tea and talk about the doings in the area. After a while, his wife brings in the chicken cooked up all nice, and offers it to us, the honored guests. The kids watch from the corners of the room.
But I can’t eat that damned bird. I can’t do it. I can’t bear the eyes of the kids. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s not like they are watching me with reproach in their eyes or anything, that wasn’t the problem at all. The thing I can’t bear is that the kids can’t take their eyes off of the chicken. Their eyes caress it. As the poet said, they watch that bird “as one who hath been stunned and is of sense forlorn”. They are blind to everything else. I can’t take it.
Plus I am shamed by the easy generosity of the man and his wife. They have nothing, and yet he offers us half of what they have without missing a beat. I am reminded of Rabelais’ will: “I have nothing, I owe a great deal, and the rest I leave to the poor”. The farmer’s wife has cooked and served the chicken, both of them temporarily appropriating the easy air of people who have hundreds of chickens, people who have chicken for dinner every night. My heart hangs, suspended. I hear the lone remaining chicken complaining outside.
So I trot out my old threadbare excuse from Mexico, and I blame my much-maligned liver. In Mexico, they blame their liver for everything. I have found it’s quite a useful excuse—over the years my liver has cheerfully soaked up the blame for a host of my idiosyncrasies. So I take one small bite for form’s sake, and then (in French, it being Senegal) I compliment the woman and the man on the chicken. I tell them the doctor has said that chicken is bad for my liver, le médecin has said that le poulet is downright mauvais for my greatly-abused old foie, so as much as I liked the delicious flavor, and as much as I was deeply grateful for the honor they were offering me, I say I’m terribly sorry but I can’t possibly eat any more, they’ll just have to finish it off for me. And I tuck into the rest of the meal, the part that my liver doesn’t mind, to prove my bonafides.
They make the appropriate noises of disappointment that I’m not eating, and they have the grace not to look overjoyed. The children’s eyes are full of expectation. They look at that poor scrawny little representative of the great avian nation with unconcealed longing. The wife takes the plate into the back. In contrast to their earlier raucous play, the children vanish soundlessly on bare feet along with her. It seems that none of them dare to make a sound in case the mirage all disappears, like Cinderella after midnight. Not the time to get mom mad …
I avert my eyes from the disappearing chicken and the children. I look at the man and my workmate. We lapse into small-talk with no reference at all to poultry, or to children, chatting light-heartedly as though nothing meaningful had just occurred.
Thinking on it now, I consider how many times I’ve bought some random chicken in the supermarket on a whim, and how little it represents to me. I could buy fifty chickens if I chose, five hundred if need be. And I think about what that one scrawny chicken meant to that family.
STORY THE THIRD: Fast forward another five years, to when I lived on an atoll in the Solomon Islands, a remote bunch of tropical islands in the South Pacific north of Australia. Because I ran a shipyard, I met lots of yachties who were on boats sailing through the Solomons. Often they would complain to me about the high prices being asked by the islanders for their beautiful wood carvings. After the first few complaints, I developed the following analogy which I used over and over.
I told the yachties, imagine that one day an alien spaceship lands in your front yard. It is made out of solid gold, and it is encrusted with rubies, diamonds, sapphires, and emeralds. The alien steps out of the spaceship. He is dressed in cloth picked out in gold and silver threads, and his shoes have platinum buckles and diamonds everywhere, including on the soles … he comes up to you, and through his universal vocoder he says, “I say, old fellow, I rather fancy that old pickup truck of yours. How much money would it take to convince you to part with it?”.
Now, you know the old truck is worth maybe a hundred dollars, and that’s on a good day with a following wind. And no one can predict the future, but you are kinda sure that this opportunity will never come again … which means the real question is, would you tell the diamond-studded alien “Oh, I could be persuaded to let it go for a million dollars, it’s kinda precious to me”, or would you only say “a hundred thousand dollars”?
Seriously, I’d tell the yachties, you get a one-time chance like that, you have to take your shot. You have to ask for the moon. Might not get it, but why not ask?
Next, consider the average Solomon Islander, I would tell the yachties. The average guy in some outer island village might only see a hundred Solomon dollars in cash all year, that’s thirty bucks US. I said to the yachtie, your watch is worth thirty dollars US. Your yachting shorts set you back forty-five, the cool sunglasses were seventy-five dollars, the Izod polo shirt was fifty-five, the belt was thirty bucks. Your stylish yachting cap was sixty bucks. The nice Sperry Topsider boat shoes were seventy-five dollars. Not counting your socks or your skivvies or your jewelry, just what you are wearing alone is worth about what cash the average outer islander might make in ten or twelve years. It’s worth a decade of his labor, and that’s merely what you are wearing as you pass through his world. That doesn’t count the cash in your pocket, or the credit cards in your pocket. It doesn’t count the value of the rest of your wardrobe. And we haven’t even gotten to the money you might have in the bank or your other assets …
So yes, when you sail up to the village in a yacht and ask how much something costs, they will ask a hundred dollars Solomon, or three hundred dollars, who knows? Because to them, you’re an alien wearing gold cloth, with diamonds on the soles of your shoes. They’d be mad not to ask top dollar for their carvings.
And I told the yachties, you know what? Given both that huge disparity in net worth between you and the woodcarver, and the world-class quality of the woodcarving in the Solomons, you’d be mad not to pay top dollar for whatever carvings catch your fancy.
============ END OF THE THREE STORIES =============
Now, I have told these three tales in order to provide a context for a couple of quotes. The context that I am providing is that there is an almost inconceivable distance from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap. The top of the heap is the 1%, not of the US, but of the global population. That 1% is made up of the people like you and me and the folks who read this, folks who live in the western world, the top few percent of the global population who enjoy the full benefits of development, the winners on the planet. It’s a long, long way from where we stand down to the bottom of the heap, that dark and somewhat mysterious place we don’t like to think about where far too many of the planet’s people eke out a living on a dollar or three a day, and we wonder how on earth they can do so. To them, we are as unknown and distant as aliens in golden jeweled spaceships with diamonds on the soles of our shoes. I offer the stories to give you some idea of the constraints on those people’s lives, and the contrasts between their lives and ours.
Those people have no slack. They have no extra room in their budgets. They have no ability to absorb increases in their cost of living, particularly their energy spending. They have no credit cards, no credit, and almost no assets. They have no health insurance. They are not prepared for emergencies. They have no money in the bank. They have no reserve, no cushion, no extra clothing, no stored food in the basement, no basement for that matter, no fat around their waist, no backups, no extras of any description. They are not ready for a hike in the price of energy or anything else. They have damn well nothing—a wooden digging stick, a spare dress, a picture of Jesus, a paper wall, a scrawny chicken, a bowl of millet.
It is in that context, the context that acknowledges that about half the world, three billion people, live on less than three dollars a day (2005 PPP), that I bring up the following two quotes:
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the [US] price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”
and
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Here’s my problem with these brilliant plans. Regardless of whatever hypothetical possible future benefit they might or might not bring in fifty years, right here and now in the present they are absolutely devastating to the poor.
The US Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, the author of the first quote, wouldn’t have his commute to work imperiled if US gasoline prices were to rise to $8/gallon and thus reach the levels in Europe. He can buy all the gasoline he wants for any purpose. But if you are a poor single mom with a couple of kids and a clapped-out car that gets you to work and back and drinks gasoline faster than your good-for-nothing ex-husband drank whiskey before he left, for you a doubling of the gas prices means the kids eat less or something else goes by the board, because you have to get to work. It’s not optional.
And if the cost of electricity for the US and the White House “skyrockets”, Obama won’t be sleeping cold in the winter. Nor will I, for that matter. That would be the poor renter in upstate New York who can’t afford to turn on the electric heater.
The difference between rich and poor, between developed and developing, is the availability of inexpensive energy. A kilowatt-hour of electricity is the same amount of energy as a hard day’s labor by an adult. We can buy that for fifteen cents. We’re rich because we have (or at least had) access to the hardworking servants of inexpensive energy. We have inexpensive electrical and mechanical slaves to do our work for us.
This is particularly important for the poor. The poorer you are, the larger a percentage of your budget goes to energy-intensive things like transportation and heat and electricity. If you double the price of energy, everyone is poorer, but the poor take it the hardest. Causing an increase in energy prices for any reason is the most regressive tax imaginable. At the bottom of the pile people make a buck a day and pay fifty cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity … there’s no give down there at the bottom of the heap, no room for doubling the price of gasoline to European levels, no space for electric prices to skyrocket.
So I find it both reprehensible and incomprehensible when those of us who actually are in the 1% of the global 1%, like President Obama and Secretary Chu, blithely talk of doubling the price of gasoline and sending the cost of electricity skyrocketing as though there were no negative results from that; as though it wouldn’t cause widespread suffering; as though cheap energy weren’t the best friend of the poor.
What Chu and Obama propose are crazy plans. They are ivory-tower fantasies of people who are totally out of touch with the realities faced by the poor of the world, whether inside the US or out. Now please, I’m not making this political. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have signed on to the crazy idea that we should raise energy prices.
When I was a kid, everyone was quite clear that inexpensive energy was the key to a fairly boundless future. Our schoolbooks told of the Tennessee Valley project, and how it lit up the whole region, to everyone’s benefit. In particular, electricity was seen, and rightly so, as the savior of the rural poor. How did we lose that? Just how and when did deliberately making energy more and more expensive become a good thing?
I don’t buy that line of talk, not for one minute. Expensive energy is not a good thing for anyone, wealthy or poor. And in particular, more expensive energy condemns the poor to lives of increased misery and privation.
As far as I know, other than the completely overblown “peak oil” fears, about the only argument raised against the manifold benefits of inexpensive energy is the claim that increasing CO2 will lead to some fancied future Thermageddon™ fifty years from now. I have seen no actual evidence that such might be the case, just shonky computer model results. And even if CO2 were to lead to a temperature rise, we have no evidence that it will be harmful overall. According to the Berkeley Earth data, we’ve seen a 2°C land temperature rise in the last two centuries with absolutely no major temperature-related ill effects that I am aware of, and in fact, generally beneficial outcomes. Longer growing seasons. More ice-free days in the northern ports. I don’t see any catastrophes in that historical warming. Despite the historical warming, there is no sign of any historical increase in weather extremes of any kind. Given two degrees C of historical warming with no increase in extreme events or catastrophes, why should I expect such an increase in some hypothetical future warming?
So I’m sorry, but I am totally unwilling to trade inexpensive energy today, which is the real actual salvation of the poor today, for some imagined possible slight reduction in the temperature fifty years from now. That is one of the worst trades that I can imagine, exchanging current suffering for a promise of a slight reduction in temperatures in the year 2050.
Finally, for those who think that these quotes and ideas of Chu and Obama only affect the US, nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, the policies are being exported and imposed, both by force and by persuasion, on the poorer countries of the world. To take just one example, pressure on the World Bank from the western countries and NGOs is denying financing to coal-fired plants in countries like India with coal resources. So the poor of India are denied inexpensive coal-fired electricity, they end up paying the price for the western one-percenters’ guilt and fear ridden fantasies about what might happen fifty years in the misty future.
Heck, even if the dreaded carbon menace were real, raising the price on fossil fuels would be the last way on earth I’d choose to fight it. Like I said … big current pain for small future maybes, that’s a lousy trade. Now, I don’t think CO2 is worth fighting. But if you do, I implore you, first do no harm—any rise in energy prices harms the poor. If you want to fight CO2, there are other ways.
w.
[UPDATE: a reader has pointed out that I am not describing the poorest of the poor, and he is quite correct. Helena had her job. The African farmer had a house and land, and not to mention originally two, but lately only one, chicken. The people in the Solomons had their bush gardens and the bountiful ocean.
The poorest of the poor have none of these things. They are a whole level below the people I talk about. You don’t want to consider where they sleep or what they eat. And yes, they are hit by rising energy prices like everyone else. -w.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Uh oh … who’s going to ‘enforce’ this equitably, equally, without prejudice or malice on that first part?
And – WON’T potential targets SIMPLY maintain a ‘financial’ level below said trigger point – or engage in the usual political payoffs or ‘alliances’ (like with NBC’s David Gregory whose wife is friends with the DC prosecutor re: David’s unabashed waving of a high-cap magazine on national TV a few weeks ago in direct violation of a DC law? Prosecutor declines to prosecute …)
An example, I think, EM Smith, of addressing a non-static entity with standard, static thinking … congress does it all the time re: levying of various taxes; it’s an easy pit to fall into …
.
richardscourtney says: January 13, 2013 at 9:26 am
Steven Mosher January 13, 2013 at 8:37 am – provided this link
Second that everyone should watch – quite brilliant. And very much to the themes here in WUWT.
Quotes:
” the richest 1 billion, 1/7 of the people on the planet are responsible for half of the world’s energy consumption…”
“The richest people will in future use less, they will get more energy efficient, and will produce more ‘green’ energy, but until they use the same amount as everyone else they should not tell us what to do!…”
“Thank you industrialization, thank you steel mills, thank you power stations, thank you chemical processing industries …. now my mother and I have time to read books!”
Oh, and the reason that in ‘the gold old days’ in Europe they drank a lot of beer (and soup) was because in their poverty they dumped a lot of sewage into the river. Result, drink the water and die. Beer (and a soup that is cooked all day) is safe, however, so they drank beer. See the above tales, when you are that poor, that is the only way you have to dispose of sewage. Bring in the green agenda, and you had better learn to brew beer and like soup.
Indeed, there is even a not-quite-tongue-in-cheek movie available on Netflix titled “How Beer Saved the World”. This is the literal truth, and not just in Europe. The discovery of beer almost perfectly coincided with the invention of civilization, too — cultivation of barley being a key requirement to brew beer, after hunter-gatherers accidentally discovered it (probably) when returning to cached barley that had gotten wet.
I’m ready for the collapse, personally — I brew my own (and make a pretty good soup). I survived the Mayan apocalypse (and need a tee shirt announcing that fact). Will I survive the engineered collapse of the global economy that will follow the continuation of the current energy policies and overinvestment in alternative energy resources before their time? Not so certain.
Around here, we still remember Hurricane Fran, because it left us without electricity for a solid week. We remember a particularly nasty ice storm a few years later that did exactly the same thing, midwinter. You would be amazed at how rapidly a standard of living regresses to the nineteenth century if you just pull the plug. And even so, we never lost running water, and because I was fortunate enough then to have a natural gas hot water heater and natural gas grill that didn’t require electricity to operate we even had hot water and could cook. We also still had cars, once enough trees were cut that we could get out of our neighborhood to the dark and refrigeration-free stores.
There’s a lovely novel — Alas Babylon, by Pat Frank — from the heart of the Cold War, that graphically describes the regression of the civilization of a patch of survivors in central Florida to the nineteenth century overnight in the aftermath of a nuclear war. With the loss of electricity, gasoline, and our network of supply that runs from farm to table, from factory to store, from pharmaceutical plant to hospital, our ability to support a large population vanishes as well.
There is nothing “idyllic” about living below the electric light line, below the washing machine and refrigeration line (it isn’t just washing machines — refrigerators are even more important as they permit the storage of otherwise perishable food, and food trumps clean clothing). There is nothing romantic about unsafe water or a complete lack of plumbing and running water or sewage treatment.
The primary CAGW threat is always the loss of coastal living area due to presumed flooding as the ice caps melt. It never seems to take into account the loss of living area due to the fact that it requires heat to live at all for six months of the years in most of the Northern part of the temperate zone. In “idyllic” times, that heat was provided by burning wood (carbon), something that was possible only when the population was miniscule, so that there were many trees per person available to be burned. Wood fires, of course, are horribly inefficient. Neither solar nor wind is going to heat homes in Maine in midwinter, not ever, nor in Finland, nor in Siberia. These are not small coastal areas, these are the temperate areas that collectively form the breadbasket of the world.
rgb
Willis, Based on the title, you obviously read Pogo when you were young … I’m amazed at how appropriate his satire still is.
Gail Combs ” Your citing of people’s personal disasters to try to ‘prove’ something or other is (a) irrelevant, and (b) lower than a
snake’sGleick’s belly.”Fixed it for ya, Gail. 😉
Beer is still nasty. 😉
Willis
Thanks for sharing your experiences close to the 10th Parallel!! Changing the word “religion” to clean energy in a comment by malob http://www.amazon.com/The-Tenth-Parallel-Dispatches-Christianity/product-reviews/0374273189/ I read when researching the book seems about right to me when looking at the religion of carbon dioxide as being evil.
“Overall picture about the constant struggle for existence that has been going on for years. Most Americans are far removed from this reality. Should be a must-read if you want to know more about the power struggle done in the name of religion. ”
I have a good stock pile of home made wine to make it through the chilly nights if I end up without power while it’s 20F outside.
Allen B. Eltor says:
January 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm
“My point was that I preferred smaller governments”…
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Your point was you believe a giant heater in the sky that is going to drown people before they can get out of the way.
And that it would be a good idea to utterly remove redundancy of checks in governance.
To save money.
That tells us all we need to know Professor Borehole.
Willis, thx fer yr true story, poignant and well told, about living on the littoral..
At 5:44 AM on 14 January, Gail Combs posted:
…posting a link to a truly crappy YouTube cover of the tune actually named “Worms of the Earth,” written by Bob Esty and part of the repertoire of the performing group Clam Chowder in which Bob has participated for many years.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find a link to any online reproduction of Clam Chowder’s performances of this tune, but I couldn’t let such a frelkin’ mundane as Ms. Combs defile the work of a trufan like Mr. Esty.
Very good sketching out of the global context.
Of course, Americans are more worried about the 30 million jobs dearth, the 2 million STEM professionals who are unemployed or out of field, the exploding prices which the bureaubums denies is happening, the stereo they no longer have because the last time they had to self-move for a chance at a survival job, there was no room, the 5,000 volume library ditto, the car they had to give up because they didn’t have $50 to register it $500 for the protection rackets and $17 to replace that blasted brake light switch that was so poorly designed it had to be replaced every 18-24 months and, besides, the $50 battery was dead because it had been left to sit too long.
And then I reflect on your description of the “yachtie’s” clothing. How long would that outfit last? I mean, really. Most of that stuff was sloppily slapped together by some under-paid slum-dweller or prison labor in Red China. Corners were cut on the quality of materials and on workmanship. He’s lucky if most of it will last 18 months (and that cheap watch maybe 10-12), but what does the yachtie care? He’s got a half-dozen business suits and several levels of casual outfits suitable for each kind of occasion. He’s not down to his last pair of dress pants, heavily clawed by the cat he’s been sitting, and wondering what he could possible wear, now, if he did land an interview.
Why, the yachtie can bolt from one part of the world to another as it suits his pleasure, leaving suit-cases of clothing behind in many cases. He doesn’t have to turn down the job opportunity because the employers are no longer flying US candidates across the country for interviews, nor relocating them as they used to before bodyshopping started to explode in the 1980s, and cross-border bodyshopping since 1990.
But then, let’s consider that shanty-town. It makes me think of pioneer ancestors, felling trees and building a crude cabin within a day, or building from rubble stone if that was available, then carefully improving it over time as resources allow. Both use available materials. Both ignored or avoided government permits and licenses for the most part (just as with the shanty-towns of Cairo and Mexico City).
The main difference I see is demand for labor. Skills of every kind were in very high demand through 1900 in most parts of what is now the USA, and land was inexpensive, nearly everyone could afford to buy or homestead enough land to more than subsist. Up until the late 1800s, there was still available frontier nearly everyone was knowledgeable enough to be able to make use of, though perhaps not wealthy enough to own the best known tools for the job.
Well, the frontiers are gone, and we’ve been “in-filling” for over a century. Though not as over-populated and over-populated as Union City or Mumbai, things are kind of cramped. If you want to move these days, if you want to build a home or business, you have to jump through numerous government hoops, to beg and bribe in the legally prescribed manner. If you get paid, governments exort big… make that huge portions of it. If you get sick, now, the feral federal government wants to know and determine what kind of care and how much you are permitted to buy, and keep your files on hand as a ready source of info on your vulnerabilities to be leveraged to keep you under their thumbs.
From my POV, the pols (including Algore and cousin Obummer) are eagerly working to make us all shanty-town dwellers and slaves.
“Once the populations started to recover the economy also started to recover and we had boom times.”
I think you’re confusing cause with effect.
“Citation alert! Citation cleanup needed on aisle three!”
:B-)
When agriculture got going, people started living in larger villages, towns, and cities. Diseases that had been quenched by low population densities of at most 7K to massively over-crowded cities of somewhere between 300K and 400K (and up), started ripping through, killing off high percentages of people (2% to 100% depending on the disease). William H. McNeill 1976, 1998 _Plagues and Peoples_
mib8:
At January 14, 2013 at 9:58 am you write
Hmmm. That is an interesting claim, and the fact that McNeill (or anyone else) has written it does not show it is true.
People were hunter gatherers prior to agriculture.
How can one know that diseases were “quenched by low population densities” in hunter gatherer populations which – by their nature – left no archaeological information? Please explain how McNeill deduces this was so.
Does a wandering tribe acting cooperatively really have a lower effective population density than an agricultural village when considering disease vectors? I strongly doubt it, and you don’t say how McNeill justifies his assertion.
Cities arise when population is sufficiently large. Of course, a pandemic may destroy a city especially in the absence of medicine, but this must always have been rare or few cities would grown and survived. Some cities were lost (e.g. Troy) but many – probably most – were not.
Simply, the assertions of McNeill don’t pass the ‘smell test’.
Richard
Climate Ace says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:16 am
Who said there has never been major fires? There is something unique about this one, btw. Not that you would be interested.
===================================
Ah yes you claim that your fire is special but don’t bother to explain. That is so convincing.
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Since BAU (business as usual, with the economy fired by cheap fuel) has reduced the amount of poverty on the planet by orders of magnitude, and has made Climate Ace himself wealthy in a way unknown to kings of old, I find this claim to be totally and completely backwards.
Call off your old tired ethics, Ace. Helena was twice the human being you are, she was caring and kind. Nor was it “BAU poverty” that brought her to the work. It was plain old garden variety poverty, the poverty that existed for millennia before business as usual, the poverty that business as usual has been more successful at fighting than anything else we’ve ever done.
I used to think you were just dumb, Ace. But now I see that in reality you are world-class stupid. Here is the actual truth, as verified by many, many experiments.
BAU has done more to end poverty than anything else we’ve ever tried. It works better than kings and princes. It works better than anarchy. It works better than dictators and potentates. It works better than communism, better than Maoism, better than Stalinism, better than any “ism” we’ve ever tried.
This is not just theory, Ace. This has been tried and tested hundreds of times in hundreds of places. You really should open your eyes and look at what has worked.
You idiot, we don’t even know if it is going to hit, or if it even exists … and you want to tell us that poverty will be a part of it?
You stupid, stupid man. BAU has been more successful at making people wealthier than any system we’ve ever tried … and you want to tear it down? You want to replace it?
With what? And what expertise are you calling on to rebuild the world’s economy? You are just some spineless anonymous man who doesn’t have the balls to sign his own name to his ideas. What do you know about rebuilding the economy of the entire planet as you blithely propose?
Whereas you, I suppose, run towards where the shit is hitting the fan. No surprise there, I guess.
What is your point, Ace? That people flee trouble if they can? Gosh, do you have any other perfectly obvious things you’d like to point out?
The appropriate response to my story is to think about it. How about you try doing that before posting here again?
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
Your article was poetic, sad, beautiful and enlightening. Thankyou.
But I write to thank you for your rebuttal of Climate Ace at January 14, 2013 at 10:40 am.
I truly wish I had your eloquence so I could have rebutted him/her/it with the same calm and righteous indignation that you have. I suspect I am not alone in my gratitude.
Richard
mib8 says:
January 14, 2013 at 9:58 am
Thanks, mib8. Actually, I’d asked for a citation for a claim by lowercase fred, which was that people got smaller after the introduction of agriculture. I’m still waiting for that one.
Regarding your citation to a claim by McNeill, that small hunter-gatherer populations “quench” epidemics so that high percentages don’t get killed, that’s a very, very foolish claim.
Consider, for example, what happened when the white guys brought disease to the Americas starting in 1500. Estimates vary, but by some estimates up to 90% of the Native American hunter-gatherers living in what McNeill calls “low population densities of at most 7K” died in the huge, raging epidemics that followed …
You know which epidemics I mean, the theoretically impossible epidemics that McNeill claims would have been “quenched” by the fact that by and large the Native Americans were hunter-gatherers living in small groups. My conclusion is that McNeill was a much better historian than an epidemiologist, but regarding epidemics he wasn’t a scientist at all. He didn’t think about what he was writing, he didn’t compare it to what he knew of the real world.
Dear friends, please take the lesson from both William McNeill and mib8, which is to think through what you are posting before posting it … some things just don’t pass the smell test. DO NOT BLINDLY DEPEND ON THE WORD OF “EXPERTS” LIKE MCNEILL!! Think about what they say.
You’ve all got good brains, put them to use. Look for counter examples to your own claims. Yeah, I know that the easiest guy for me to fool is me, and I’ve posted some foolish stuff too … but please do make the attempt to think through and debunk your own claims and citations before posting them.
w.
I’m not exactly sure where the villages in the Congo should be placed, but more likely hunter gatherer than farming, and most of them are well below 7K people. That is where Ebola previously wiped out village after village. I don’t think the hunters are spared either.
Funny how a – gasp – horror – CHEMICAL like chlorine bleach can be so effective at stopping a monster. Talk about un-green.
McNeill my tailbone!
Want to be really angry? Watch this two hour video on thorium nuclear power, the abundant source of cheap, safe, energy we could have had fifty years ago. It was perfected at Oak Ridge, but the military power in the US government wanted to go with uranium because uranium could be bread into plutonium for bombs. Thorium was rejected as a source for atomic weapons — to difficult and dangerous — when making bombs. But extraordinarily easy and safe when making nuclear power. And there is enough thorium to power the world for thousands of years. Maybe we will do it, but the Chinese look like they will beat us to it using what we developed at Oak Ridge. But that part of the world needs cheaper energy than we do. So maybe it is the just thing to do.
Watch the video:
Willis, you are the very best….writter….story teller….thinker.. Your life has been amazing in its world experiences. It is your ability to understand what you have experienced that surpases that on anyone else I have ever “known”. Yes, I feel as though I know you. Thank you for enriching my life and putting perspective to big issues of the world. One problem; you make me feel very small.
davidgmills says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Thanks, David. Here’s how it is for me. When someone asks if I want to watch a two-hour video, my answer is usually no. Videos almost always move way too slow for me. Almost invariably, I find them boring as hell. It reminds me of being in the Army, when they brought out a guy with a six-foot toothbrush, who moved it vertically to teach us to brush up and down … boooooooring …
However, when someone offers me the unique opportunity to become totally enraged by watching a two hour video, that question is much easier to reply to. My answer is invariably no.
Seriously, David, why would I subject myself two hours of terminal boredom just so I can be furious about the world and how it works?
w.
Wills
Well done and well expressed.
One of the greatest gifts God ever gave me was that of seeing real poverty on a daily basis. By age of sixteen I’d been to sixteen different countries… all poor… and by ‘73 hadn’t lived in the U.S. for over five years. I’d become used to poverty as a norm. Indeed, one of my most vivid early memories seeing contrast while regularly visiting a shanty town in Panama City, Panama, located just across the street from the then U.S. Canal city of Balboa. (Went to buy books I couldn’t afford on the U.S. side).
The first time I recall experiencing culture shock was when I crossed the Mexican border into the United States in late ‘73. I had difficulty comprehending the United States sheer wealth. Wealth that left me reeling in disbelief.
Reflecting upon your article, as well as the comments above, it struck me an import point is frequently missed even among those with experiences similar to ours. That being… that the gap between developed and non-developed nations is not that deep or wide a divide. We simply are not that many mistakes away from becoming an impoverished nation.
All too often we assume that that “our” nation will never experience extreme poverty. We forget how easily we can squander the advantages given to us by prior, desperately poor, generations. We too easily forget the bulk of our current wealth was created after the Great Depression. And we arrogantly assume that we can make no mistake so great that we will not, or cannot, fall into poverty again.
In part because I live in the Tennessee Valley and; ironically, because have worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for many years; I am acutely aware of the relationship between an abundant supply of affordable electrons and abject poverty. That lesson is starkly evident in too easily forgotten history.
Today we are awash in electrons. Tomorrow could be a different story. In the very short order we could face storages of inexpensive power nationwide. A doubling or tripling of retail power cost is not out of the question.
So, in just a few years, power could well be unaffordable to both the venerable poor and the businesses from which are wealth is derived.
It useful to remember that, in the United States, economic activity comes to a dead stop when affordable power doesn’t flow.
Remove any city from the grid. No lights. No air conditioning. No electric heat, natural gas, or fuel oil. No medical care. No access to bank accounts. Refrigerated foods are largely gone within days. Fuel shortages soon follow and transportation comes to a dead stop within a week.
We can be the fools that squandered their father’s inheritance.
We too live life on a razors edge. But, we forget how close and deep that edge is.
Regards,
Kforestcat
Willis’ statements that BAU helps with poverty in third world countries struck me as intuitively very wrong. We have all heard about third world child- and slave-labor under horrible conditions. My impression was that we simply exported the kind of brutal, exploitative capitalism that we had in Europe some 150 years ago. That cannot be good. So I googled, and I found this:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/73-371/UN_article.doc
It seems that multinational corporations (MNC) are doing some good. The article talks about improved literacy, life expectancy, standard of living coincident with involvement of MNCs, and absent in those countries where MNC don’t invest. The author bases his conclusions on UN and world bank reports but, unfortunately, does not supply any references.
Those of you knowledgable about world economics: is this believable?
Yes there is a whole other world out there. Even the poorest of the poor in the US would be kings and queens in that other world.