Do you really think it's a question of superiority?

Right now, there's a big flap about a honeybee shortage in North America. The worst-case condition would be a major extinction event, i.e. Americans would, essentially, become extinct, since no substantial food production on the North American continent will be possible witout them. Now, that is the most extreme conceivable case, but, since it's likely that the event, whatever its extent, is being brought about by some short-sighted venture by some "consequences-don't matter" thinking on the part of one chemical company or another, it certainly promotes that fly on the wall in my thinking. Flies and other insects pollenate our crops, too, though to much lesser extent than bees.


As I was visiting my Mom the other day, she pointed out that there'd been gas prices approaching $4/gal reported on the news. They're just about $3 here, but I think we can rely on the prices to get some of those big trucks and SUV's off the road.

Unfortunately for some, and it probably won't impact the folks who have three such vehicles in their driveway, as they'll continue driving their 8-gpm Hummers until the price exceeds $25/gal, but that guy who drives that 10-year-old Blazer ... not becuase it's fashionable, but because he has to haul his kids around, and bought the cheap old SUV when somebody figured it was time for an upgrade, well ... he's going to suffer. Not only because of his poor gas mileage, but because of the price pressure caused by the rich fellow with the 3 Hummers in his driveway.

The people who can't afford the latest innovations are the ones who suffer first.

Big-Oil couldn't charge what it charges for its products if YOU wouldn't pay it. I already limit my driving as much as I can. I use considerably less than that 10 gallon-per-week level I've mentioned from time to time. It's the same way with grid-distributed electric power. I've gathered, from your prior comments, that you figure it's fine if suburbia has a power outage, so long as the bit energy-wasters downtown can keep the temperate in their buildings low in the summer and high in the winter. I suppose the folks who are too warm in the summer because there's no power for their swamp cooler, should go to a movie to cool off, and the ones who are too cold in the winter should hang out at the mall to keep from freezing.


Mexico, and Mexico is certainly not alone in this respect, has a culture and an economy built around that very corruption. In the U.S, we like to look down our noses at that, but it's a given and everyone is aware of, and prepared, to greater or lesser extent, for it. In the U.S. we have a culture that denies corruption, yet an economy that thrives on it. We have a history, literature, and tradition that wachses poetic about freedom, prosperity, and the "common good," yet we have an economy in which it's "the devil with the hindmost," in which we thrive on globalization. The latter, globalization, isn't a bad thing in itself, if only all people would participate in it equally. The current U.S. attitude is that while we like the lower prices, we want someone else to clean up the environmental and labor issues.

It's true that I don't know how you live when in Mexico. It's also true, I'd guess, that it's not as well as here in the U.S. when you're here. Nonetheless, I'd also guess it's well above the median prosperity level in a country where well over 99.9% of the resources are held by well under 0.1% of the population, and where people unable to secure a reasonable living within the country are fleeing to the U.S. in order to "better themselves."



Oh yeah ... climate change ... Well, it's not all about carbon dioxide. CO2 is blamed,rightly or wrongly, for keeping heat from escaping from the earth as it once did. One aspect of "global warming" that I've seen discussed very little is the contribution of man to that heat. Man has been tipping the balance ever since he discovered how to create and use fire. At the same time, he's been tipping the balance by increasing the CO2 ever since then, too, as the wood, coal, or petroleum he's burned has been releasing carbon that was naturally sequestered. The "global warming" debate has focused mainly on the increased CO2 load that human activity has presented. I imagine that the reason for this is that CO2 management is a pretty easy technology to implement, while management of the heat that human activity produces, e.g, that is produced by the billions of miles of heating element that route power from generation to end-users, and the heat given off by all the processes that burn something, giving off the majority of their energy as waste heat, and so on, presents a much more difficult problem.

What makes this so thorny an issue is that the majority of this heat, as well as the majority of the associated CO2 burden, comes from our homes.

Now, I have my attic essentially full of insulation. Most authorities would say that that's too much. How much ceiling insulation does the average suburban home have? Well, who knows? Nevertheless, nearly everyone, including the power companies, agrees that it's not enough!

Our government whines all the time (though not so much as during previous administrations) about how South American and African countries are reducing their rain-forest for agriculture or ranching, yet they seldom mention that, during the development of the "mid-west" in the U.S, which was nearly entirely tree-covered in the 18th century, nearly all the forestation was destroyed. Other countries wonder why the U.S. should see what they did in the last few centures as OK, while we apparently see what they're doing to develop their economies as deplorable.

The core of the thread, at least insofar as we, meaning you and I only, has wandered off onto the corruption issue because of its association with nuclear power plant construction as suggested in that old movie, The China Syndrome. Because we have an economy that's corrupt but a culture that's in denial, and a legal system that ensures that there's a truly remote likelihood that any perpetrator of even crimnal negligence will be held to account, it's unavoidable that of the many people working on such a project at least one will intentionally, probably for profit, commit some error that will compromise the integrity and safety of such a facility.

In France, and in Japan, where nuclear power is, and has for many years been, used quite safely and effectively, it's because they are aware of corruption in their society and economy and have placed costly but effective safeguards that mitigate this risk. In the U.S. we are culturally unable to grapple with such problems. Instead, we assume everyone operates in "good faith" which is never the case.

As for my attitude, well, I assume the worst. That way I'm seldom disappointed. The people who know me see me as a relatively happy guy. The reason is, at least in part, because I don't let my happiness hinge on the behavior of others.

Many decisions have to be made between what one CAN do and what one SHOULD. You have to decide whether to eat that second scoop of ice-cream based on whether you want to take on the extra carbohydrates and cholesterol. That affects YOU within THIS life. It's much easier to overindulge on carbon when it has no immediate effect on YOU. Who cares that subsequent generations may suffer or die because of that carbon consumption.

Save your pity for those who can't reconcile their immediate behaviors with their notion of the importance of their species with respect to the WHOLE environment. I've already reconciled mine.

RE