Had Hillary been Herman - The heartbreaking truth about American feminism

In response to Lauren Besser's article Had Bernie been Bernadette — The heartbreaking truth about American patriarchy and the many other articles I've seen on social media posted by my feminist friends.

I have never to my knowledge received a legitimate death threat that warranted FBI involvement. I don’t really know truly and personally what it feels like to treated as a second-class person. However, I have for my entire adult life known and supported female friends, who have struggled with body image issues, eating disorders, and wage gaps. I have seen the aftermath of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. I have on occasion called out male friends for making derogatory comments. I have made amateurish attempts to coach these female friends out of depression or in less severe cases through the anxiety induced by unnecessary social pressures at school and work.

I am, as best as I understand the word, a male feminist. I want a world where women don’t need to wake up an hour earlier in the morning get their hair and make up just right before going to work. I want a world where sexual violence is never blamed on the victim, or better yet it isn’t a default concern of half the population. I want to live in a country where a politician’s credentials, record, and character are their key to success – not their race, gender (identity), sex(-ual orientation), or other physical features.

In order to achieve this in my lifetime (or at least in the lifetime of my unborn grandchildren), we need to truly and fundamentally shift how society approaches these issues. We need not just one change agent, but many of them operating in earnest at all levels of society, business, and government.

It is with this understanding that I am growing continually frustrated with my many female/feminist friends, who are continually posting/sharing articles supporting Hillary as a true change agent, based on her credentials as a woman. (Or conversely, that Bernie is not the right choice for feminists - or any of the other many gender-related permutations of this conversation.) If Hillary had been born as Herman (and chose to remain as Herman as a gender identity), would you still admire her (or in this case his) credentials?

In one of the many articles considering where a feminist should stand on the Bernie or Hillary question, Lauren Besser poses/answers the questions:

“Are the sins of our institutions so terrible? Yes. Are those sins more terrible when committed by a woman? Seems so.”

I think she and other feminists (of any gender) would be better off asking themselves, “Do you want to change the system? Or do you want to have merely appeared to change the system?”

I would also suggest that these questions could also apply to many other issues, not the least of which being climate change, which all things being status quo means women should expect to be disproportionately impacted for generations to come.

A Call for Universal Human Dignity

Preamble

As we stand on the shoulders of giants and the progress of human innovation steadily ratchets up the ceiling on the realm of possibility, human society must vigilantly attend to the foundation on which that innovation was permitted to thrive, lest both crumble. As we continue to accrue the technological capital to allow a few in our society to approach a power that our ancestors would have considered god-like, we have the responsibility to ensure that even the lowest among us are able to live beyond the means of the kings of those same ancestors. It is with these sentiments that a call is issued for society to pursue and preserve a universal dignity for all of its members.

Tenets of Universal Human Survival

While nature abhors permanence and no individual being will live forever, the threshold of dignity cannot be bestowed upon someone who is unable to survive. Therefore, to support human dignity, these tenets of Universal Human Survival should be sought first and foremost for current and future generations.

1.          Clean Water, Air, and Food

2.         Basic Healthcare and Exercise

3.          Personal Safety and Shelter

4.         Reproductive Agency

Tenets of Universal Human Dignity

To ensure that no person is subjected to mere subsistence or servitude and that each person is able to experience as dignified an existence as nature will allow, a mutual bond between humans living in a free and modern society must concede the following tenets of human dignity to each individual member of society so long as it does not preclude the survival or dignity of another or put an undue burden on the society as a whole or the environment that supports it.

1.          Information and Education

2.         Communication and Expression

3.          Organization and Identification

4.         Mobility and Exploration

5.         Creation and Productivity

The Call

Similar to the physical laws of the universe, human society must counter entropy with work to prolong the values that we hold most dear. It is only through persistence of innovation and quality of character that human greatness can forestall the perils of time. By asking to ensure the rights of current and future generations, these Tenets do not leave room for waste, sloth, or pollution. However, where and whenever circumstances and technology permit, society should endeavor to cleave the tenuousness of human survival and dignity from unstable economic pressures, leaving only as much linkage as is necessary to perpetuate the institutions and systems that support Universal Human Dignity.

This is the first section of a longer document I wrote, originally published on the Revolutionary Peace Blog.

A Sustainable Minimum Wage

Hello Readers,

In President Obama's 2014 State of the Union, the issue of moving the minimum wage closer to a living wage was deemed a top priority by the administration. I have had a few ideas for ensuring a more sustainable minimum wage by tying it to other monetary values. Here are two options:

• Political Contribution Limits: I propose that annual political contribution limits should be legally tied to the Federal minimum wage. Specifically, individuals and corporations should not be allowed to give annual political contributions that exceed the weekly salary of someone earning the minimum wage and working full-time. To be clear, the limit to political contributions for individuals and corporations should be the limit for the total amount of contributions to all PAC's, candidates, parties, etc. This would serve a dual purpose of limiting the money in politics and provide an incentive to keep the minimum wage at a reasonable level.
• Congressional Salaries: I propose to set the minimum wage as 12% of the standard Congressional salary. In 2014, the annual Congressional salary is $174,000, which would mean that someone working full-time and earning the minimum wage would earn $20,880 annually. In other words, the hourly minimum wage would be $10.04! This would also ensure that the minimum wage would be regularly adjusted (unless members of Congress turn down their own annual raises).

Just some thoughts on how to make the US economy more sustainable.

Cheers,

Sean

Desertification - How to fix it!

Hello Readers,

I have been fairly busy the past couple of months, and so my posts have obviously been lacking. However, today I watched a TED Talk that blew my mind!

If you are interested in climate change, food justice, land management, livestock issues, and/or any number of other sustainability topics, this TED Talk is a must watch! Allan Savory, explains how to repair desertified regions in a manner that is counter-intuitive and frankly surprising.



For more information, you can also visit the TED website for a bio of Mr. Savory or the Savory Institute website.

Cheers,
Sean

Climate Change: How we can act!

Hello Readers,

I have found a TED Talk with a very important message for the Warmest Generation... How do we work together to solve the issues in front of us?





Let's give it a try!

Cheers,

Sean

Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In this series so far, I introduced a premise for (and reasoning behind) a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will put forth a possible mechanism or strategy for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

To begin this process in a politically tenable and socially agreeable manner, we need to start at the current baseline and move incrementally toward the goal(s) of this reform.

Currently, the social security pie is nominally set to give 100% of the funding allocation pie to slice number 1 (Funds paid out to all current retirees). However, the baseline according to ssa.gov's 2012 annual report summary:

"...The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086."

In essence, social security will not survive in its current form past 2033 (before anyone born in the 1970's or later starts collecting). Thus, it does not seem unreasonable to aim for reform to be fully implemented by 2030. In the graph below, I have offered one possible trajectory for social security fund allocations.

I would recommend implementing the various slices slowly at a rate of roughly 1% per year. I would introduce slices 2 and 3 (the generational and personal slices) starting in 2014, and I would cap their percentages at 15% and 10% respectively. In this way, no more than 15% of an individual worker's social security payments would go to their generational trust fund. Likewise, no more than 10% of an individual worker's social security payments could be diverted to a personal retirement account. 

Similarly, I would recommend introducing slice 4 (the national debt slice) starting in 2018 at a capped rate of 1% and let the cap grow to 10% in 2028. Starting in 2029 and beyond, I would recommend allowing slice 4 to fluctuate between 0% and 10% based on some reasonable measure of the federal government's deficit spending over the preceding decade.

While I am not in a position to determine which metric this slice 4 percentage is tied to, I would simply hope that the calculations would be clearly defined in such a manner that deficit spending results in a reduction in the amount of money allocated to social security spending. Thus, Congress would be heavily incentivized to reduce deficit spending (and thereby proportionately increase the amount of spending allocated to current retirees). Similarly, it would encourage current retirees to hold members of Congress accountable for short-term deficit spending.

***

In summary, I believe that each of these implementation timelines should be slow enough that there will not be any huge/unexpected shock to the economic system. Also, in the long-term, this will: (1) ensure that at least some small part of an individual's retirement funding will be secured regardless of when they are born or how many current workers there are, and (2) ensure that reducing the national debt is no longer simply an exercise in letting future generations resolve the issues of today.

I look forward to your thoughtful criticisms and suggestions on this matter.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In the previous post, I introduced a premise for a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in the next post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

1. Funds paid out to all current retirees

The reasoning behind the first slice "Funds paid out to all current retirees" is perhaps the most obvious. This appears to be the original intent of the social security program, allowing funds from the actively working body politic to help support the currently retired. This helps senior citizens mitigate the negative impacts of any short-term personal financial hardships during or immediately before retirement.

Thus, as long as social security survives, a certain share of any social security funds will need to be spread across all current retirees, who are actively receiving benefits. Perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (the living) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we are not going to leave senior citizens to fend for themselves.

2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees

The reasoning behind the second slice "Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees" is a new, subtle adjustment to the current social security scheme. Originally, (when social security was created) there would have been an expectation that with most citizens not surviving long enough to collect social security (or not surviving long enough to collect it more than a few years) that there would always be a sufficient number of active workers to fund the needs of living retirees.

However, today, with the 20/20 vision afforded to us by basically 80 years of practice, it is clear that for social security to function in perpetuity from generation to generation: each individual generation needs some certainty about their own retirement. By immediately spreading all incoming social security funding across the needs of current retirees, we will inevitably encounter situations (such as the crashing of the baby-boom retirement wave) where the working generations cannot reasonably be expected to support the needs of current retirees without putting in peril their own needs in the future.

Thus, I would suggest that one way to mitigate the impact of these fluctuations over time is to move away from a current workforce supporting current retirees model toward a current workforce supporting future retirees model. In this way, each generation would more directly be supporting itself, and (likewise) the size of each generation of retirees will be proportionately supported by a generation of roughly the same size (i.e. the younger version of itself). As such, perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (our generation) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we should not forget about our future selves even as we work to support the ones we love.

3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds

While the original version of the social security program appears to have had provisions that limit the level of benefits an individual is eligible to receive based on the amount of money they paid into the program during their working life, it does not appear that the program was ever intended to give individuals any autonomy over how their own funds were invested. As a result, citizens, who do not (whether by choice or circumstance) set up other retirement plans (e.g. pensions, 401k's, IRA's) for themselves, have little-to-no direct control over the future of their own retirement funds.

Understandably, this format runs contrary to the 'spirit of rugged individualism' upon which many citizens pride themselves, and I believe that ultimately the degree to which this 'spirit' is real or perceived (a not uncommon point of contention) is irrelevant. Politicians (typically on the left) will ignore this popular sentiment at the peril of the program they support.

I believe that for social security to have any real chance at surviving in the long-term that: (1) it is necessary to offer some autonomy to those who desire it, and naturally (2) the government should only offer up such a concession under auspices of a mutual understanding that - for those who opt for autonomy - there is some risk of failure (and some risk of loss).

In practical terms, I am suggesting that individuals be able to designate (each year they are working) a certain portion of the social security funds (that would otherwise be withheld from their pay) to be diverted to some sort of personal retirement account. Then, in a complementary manner, whatever portion of a retiree's pay had been diverted to their personal retirement account over the course of their working life would be deducted from the pay-out they would otherwise receive from the more traditional social security fund(s).

At this point, I do not have any preference regarding who would run such an account (whether run by the government or -more likely- the private sector), and I do not think that the administration of such a program would need to be any more complicated than the current system of claiming a tax credit for money deposited in an IRA at the end of each tax year. Instead, it is more important that Congress just settle on something that works - politically and practically.

All things considered, this slice of the pie might easily be renamed the "rugged individual" slice of the pie... allowing those who would desire it, the ability to take a chance to earn (or lose) a little bit more than their neighbors.

4. Funds diverted to paying down the national debt

The reasoning to include this "Funds diverted to paying down the national debt" slice of the pie may be much less obvious (and much more controversial) than any of the others. However, this slice of the pie stands firmly on principles of sustainability and inter-generational equity.

It has been rightly pointed out (no pun intended) that the United States federal government is spending a large amount of money that it does not have by borrowing money from other countries... and in essence from future generations, who will be forced to pay off that debt (or possibly go to war to avoid paying the debt if it is too burdensome). In any case, it is a fundamental issue of inter-generational equity that each generation do their best to pay for the governmental programs (especially those with one-off benefits) they benefit from in their own lifetime, rather than leaving that burden to those that follow them.

Also, in perhaps a more tangible way (especially for those born of since 1970 and/or those familiar with the Greek debt crisis): what good is it to have retirement benefits promised to you in the future, if the overall functionality of your government may come into question due to astronomical national debt?

I believe that by tying the overall pool of social security benefits to the amount of national debt (or lack thereof) incurred by each generation, every generation will be incentivized to manage government spending more prudently. While this concept may seem intimidating - and I can't promise that it isn't - it may be less intimidating than trying to address the national debt issue from fiscal year to fiscal year.

****

I have offered the best (brief) reasoning that I can muster for including each piece of the social security funding scheme that I am proposing. In the next post, I will do my best to offer a good way to implement the social security reforms that I am proposing.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)

Hello Readers,

Earlier this month, I offered a letter to the newly re-elected president, in which I discussed the need for swift and decisive action on climate change and the national debt crisis. I reasoned that by taking action on issues that will greatly impact my grandchildren's grandchildren, we can see immediate improvements in the short-term while moving in the right direction overall.

This week, I would like to take some time to see if we cannot help future generations and current generations (old and young) all at the same time. To do so, I propose that we dance on another third rail (perhaps the sixth rail?) of politics: social security reform.

Over a year ago, in the summer of 2011, I offered a detailed '3 year plan' proposal for implementing automatic adjustments to the social security retirement age. With much clarification provided in the posts (links provided at the bottom of this post), the proposal boiled down to this:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

After carefully re-reading and re-considering my thoughts from last year, I stand by that proposal, and I would like to offer up some more thoughts to President Obama and the Congress as they swerve to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" at the end of this year.

Before I start to layout my new proposal to re-cut the social security pie, I would like to point out that I know that my idea will not be perfect (and will need a lot of collective thought and will-power to implement effectively). Thus, I strongly encourage my readers to consider the spirit of my proposal fundamentally set while considering the numbers in my proposal to be entirely negotiable.

Now, as I understand it, many people have argued about the merits of whether or not the 'social safety net' of social security should exist (even if some elected officials equivocate in public for the benefit of gaining senior citizen votes). However, for the sake of moving towards action, it is important to come to an understanding that whether or not you believe that social security should exist or not, it does exist.

It exists, and millions of people now depend on it as at least one of their primary sources of income.  It exists, and it will not be politically feasible to (safely) dismantle it (even if you would like to see it go). It exists, and it directly impacts most of the country (whether they are paying into it whenever they are working or they are receiving payouts now or are expecting to receive payouts soon).

As such, I hope that all of my readers, will concede that social security exists, so it is important to address its viability now to avoid potentially devastating financial consequences that will span generations. To address this viability in the fairest and most politically actionable manner, I propose that we start in the middle of the middle of all reasonable proposals for social security reform (at least of those that I have come across) and then add a little bit more.

In essence, I suggest that we begin to divide up the social security funding allocation pie.** While this may superficially seem to make the process more complicated, please stay with me and hopefully it will make sense at the end. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In the next post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in another post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

Regards,
Sean

**Throughout this entire series I am focusing solely on the social security program as it pertains to retirees, and I am not proposing to make any adjustments to parts of social security benefits for the disabled or other non-retirees.**

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

The previous "Adjustable Retirement Age" series:
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

Gardening in Towns

Hello Readers,

I thought I would follow up the Gardening in Schools TED Talk post from Monday with a TED Talk from Pam Warhurst about turning towns into edible public spaces.

Please enjoy,

Sean

Gardening in Schools

Hello Readers,

Here is a great TED Talk about combining schools with green urban agriculture.

Enjoy,

Sean

Ecological Debts and Rights

Hello Reader,

Tonight I was reading about the concept of an ecological footprint on the Happy Planet Index (HPI) website. Where I ran across the following statement:

Dividing this [the total amount of productive hectares available on the planet] by the world’s total population, we can calculate a global [ecological footprint] per capita figure on the basis that everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources.

Now I understand the concept of equity, and I generally agree with it, but I would like to take the time to question this particular concept of equity. Please note that this posting will primarily be my own academic musing, so I would appreciate hearing other arguments for or against anything I may say.

Definitions

Ecological Footprint:"a measure of the amount of land required to provide for all [of an individual's or a nation population's or the world population's] resource requirements plus the amount of vegetated land required to sequester (absorb) all their CO2 emissions and the CO2 emissions embodied in the products they consume." from HPI website

Ecological Debt: "The sum of annual ecological deficits." from Global Footprint Network website

Ecological Debt Day: Assuming that a nation or the world begins using an ecological footprint the size of its geographic footprint on January 1st, it will have used its entire ecological footprint by this day of the year, and it will start accumulating an ecological debt for the remainder of the year. from class notes of my Sustainable Consumption course.


My Concern

First, I must point out that I generally agree with HPI's definition of an ecological footprint; however, I would be inclined to consider all pollution emissions in the portion about land required for sequestration rather than simply minding CO2 emissions. Furthermore, to be particularly rigorous, I think it would also be appropriate to add other effects, such as the water that is embedded in the production of goods and the growth of food (or in the case of bottled water the water in the bottle) since this can significantly deplete aquifers and/or exacerbate drought situations. Of course, their particular definition of ecological footprint is not my primary concern.

My primary concern is the assumption at the end of the quote at the top of this post:

"...everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources."

In basic principle this seems to read essentially as a definition of social equity. But is it? If you are an environmentalist or have picked up the international section of a news paper any time in the last decade or so, there is a decent chance that you may have stumbled upon an article about international climate change policy. If so, there is also a decent chance that you have seen a comment or factoid or tidbit aimed at vilifying the USA for taking more than their fair share of oil or polluting more than they ought to. You have probably also seen a statistic along the lines of the US population only being 5% of the world population but consuming 20-30% (up to 50% really) of this, that or the other thing.

While I completely believe that such vilification is warranted in many cases, I have to ask why is so much emphasis placed on per capita figures? Clearly per capita figures are important, but why does this seem to be the pre-eminent concern? Now, at this point, you may expect me to go on about how China has (or will soon) overtake the US on an overall basis of carbon emissions. However, this is not my concern.

Instead, my interest is in how ecological footprints are calculated. That is, as the term footprint implies, they are based on a measure of geographic region. More specifically, they are based on the "total amount of productive hectares". This focus raises some interesting considerations.


Alternative Accounting

If the ecological footprint is based upon geographic area, shouldn't countries be judged primarily upon their utilization of their geographic footprint (i.e. compare ecological footprint to geographic footprint)? Trained as a physicist, I might even desire to keep my units accurate and choose to only compare the ecological footprint to the "productive" geographic footprint. In either of these cases, the US is still not keeping its ecological footprint within its on borders; however, it is doing a significantly better job than many other countries including Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

One way to measure this sort of comparison is through considering ecological debt days. According to my class notes some examples (I assume from 2008) are:

Japan: March 3rd
United Kingdom: April 16th
Germany: May 29th
United States: June 24th
France: July 27th
World: October 23rd

For a slightly different explanation and current world figures, check out the Global Footprint Network website, but note that it uses the terminology overshoot day rather than ecological debt day.

I am particularly amused by this particular measurement, because the day that this was discussed in class was perhaps one of the first times I saw non-Americans become defensive regarding consumption issues. In particular, the several British MBA students were initially confused by how it would be possible for the UK to have its ecological debt day earlier in the year than the US.

While this does not eliminate the need for the US to take immediate action to address the plethora of environmental issues it is creating, it does raise some questions regarding the brunt of the criticism. Also, it is important to note every country that has an ecological debt date is overconsuming its resources and should not be let off the hook!

Rather than get defensive (or offensive), I would like to think through some of the merits of this alternative method of ecological accounting.


National Stewardship

The main merit that is immediately obvious to me is most evident in a current practice, which I will term national stewardship. That is, given the current political structure of the world (i.e. being primarily divided into sovereign nation-states), it seems reasonable to expect a functioning national government to responsibly care for (be a steward of) the human resources (i.e. population) and the natural resources (i.e. environment) within its own borders. (I am considering current frameworks in an attempt to be pragmatic and avoid dealing with potential global ideological shifts in this post.) Unfortunately, this expectation is not being met by a large number of governments, and the matter is further confounded by oceanic issues and multinational corporations. Thus, the extent to which governments succeed or fail to put national stewardship into practice can be considered a measure of how successful the government is.

Also, it seems reasonable for a nation to fairly trade its resources with another nation without impeding the other nation's sovereignty and for a nation could consume beyond its means for a period of time by going into ecological debt, similar to the way that they do by going into financial debt. Additionally, it should be perceived as hostile to encroach upon another nation's footprint (geographic or ecological) without mutually agreed upon compensation. Finally, it is important to note that nations are currently defined by their geographic boundaries and not by the size of their population.

Since in the national stewardship model the government of one nation, for example the United Kingdom, is not expected to utilize its resources to maintain the resources of another nation, for example the United States, why should the first nation expect to reap the benefits of the resources of the second nation? Thus, if a nation can keep its ecological footprint within the confines of its own geographic footprint (i.e. it's not being 'hostile') by managing its human resources (labor, economy, social structures, etc.), it should be considered sustainable regardless of population size and should thereby be entitled to reap the benefits of its management skills. Of course, in the case where a nation cannot keep its ecological footprint under control, it should be expected to compensate other nations inflicted by the damaged caused by its poor management skills.

Therefore, without radically altering the global political structure, current national stewardship expectations dictate that nations should be judged (primarily, if not solely) upon a comparison of their ecological and geographic footprints. Although I do see that this could almost be as much of an argument against the current global political structure as an argument for national stewardship, I have a feeling that embracing national stewardship would be much less violent process (or at least no more violent than typical global affairs).

Reproductive Responsibility


I understand that people are not able to choose the nation into which they are born any more than they are able to pick the family into which they are born. However, conversely people do have some measure of choice of where they decide to live and how many children they have. (Please note that I am aware of a large number of socio-economic, political, cultural, and feminist reasons why this is choice is limited and/or considered invalid, but just bare with me here for argument's sake, and assume that these issues do not apply to everyone and/or could be overcome/avoided in many cases.) So I must question the assumption that "everyone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources".

I can only assume that I am only responsible for protecting the environment in which I live and/or has been included in my ecological footprint, a responsibility which would be delegated to the government in the case of national stewardship. I can also only assume that along with all of the other responsibilities of parenthood, parents are also responsible for their child's ecological footprint at least until the child is legally independent. To be plain, would I be considered irresponsible if I, as a potential parent, decide to have a number of children that can be accommodated by the natural resources available in the country or region in which I choose to live (or removing that choice, the country in which I already live)? This would mean that my family would have no ecological debt day! I would argue that this would mean that I am being responsible and sustainable. Conversely, given all of the same assumptions, if I decided to have more children than my nation's ecological footprint allows, am I not acting unsustainably?

Again, while I am not dismissing the issues with over-consumption, I am asking why irresponsible over-populating is being given a free pass by assuming that every person is entitled to the same amount of natural resources when in all practicality, no rational parent should have that expectation. This is especially true for areas or countries that have high population density and/or intense resource scarcity. For example, if I decide to live in the middle of the Sahara Dessert, should I be entitled to the same amount of resources as someone who decides to live close to a river surrounded by land that is suitable for cultivating crops? All of this being considered, it makes me wonder: to what extent is reproduction considered a right? (A tricky subject with a lot of possible implications which I will not go into.)

Well, I have left you with a bit of a bomb shell to consider. I hope you enjoyed my musings, and I look forward to any debate points on this subject. I feel that an entire research paper could be written on this topic (in fact I'm fairly certain several have been already).

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond