For my last post of the year, I'm simply posting links to some interesting articles from the past month or so.
A series on the effects that the enormous number of humans in the world may have on various issues. While in some cases they may be a little more optimistic or pessimistic than I would be, all of the articles are thought-provoking. Overall it's another reminder that we really need to address the issue of overpopulation, which effects so much else, especially the environment.
http://www.livescience.com/41316-11-billion-people-earth.html
http://www.livescience.com/41381-11-billion-people-climate-change.html
http://www.livescience.com/41300-11-billion-food-security.html
http://news.yahoo.com/11-billion-people-mean-earths-animals-140541848.html
This writer does a good job of making a point I've tried to make from time to time myself about scientific ignorance and the inability to think logically.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260374/-Couric-s-anti-vaccination-segment-a-symptom-of-wider-scientific-illiteracy
A commentary on Raul Castro's presence at Nelson Mandela's memorial service that aims well-deserved barbs at Castro, Mugabe, American right-wingers, pro-Castro sentiment on the left, and in general the ridiculous but widespread tendency of people of all ideological stripes to look at things in terms of black and white.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/10/ra-l-castro-honors-mandela-but-ignores-his-message.html
An interesting look at China's recent aggressive moves and their implications.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/chinas-dangerous-air-and-_b_4446349.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
A brief but good commentary on the situation in South Sudan from a man who has been deeply involved in the region over the past few years and also happens to be one of the best known actors in the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/preventing-south-sudan-inferno-104500410--politics.html
As an antidote to these somewhat depressing articles about how humanity screwing up things here on Earth, here's one summarizing the most intriguing discoveries of planets outside the Solar System that were made in the past year. It's nice to think that there may possibly be life on one or two of these worlds, and if not on these ones than on some of the many other planets that we can expect to find in the coming decades. Another nice thought is that be the time humanity has any reasonable prospect of reaching any of these places, we will almost certainly have to have become much more mature and rational as a species.
http://www.livescience.com/42217-most-amazing-exoplanet-discoveries-2013.html
Monday, December 30, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Death in Africa
The title of this post refers to a major event that took place in Africa a few days ago, and it isn't the death of the anti-apartheid leader and former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela. That isn't to say that Mandela's death wasn't a significant event, or that he isn't worthy of at least much of the attention and praise being lavished on him. After all, he was a leader of a type that is rarely seen and become even rarer in the future, at least as far as people's view of them, as pointed out in this article. Of the examples discussed in the article, Malala Yousafzai, while worthy of great respect and admiration for her courage, cannot yet be compared with experienced leaders of a long-term political struggle. As for Aung San Suu Kyi, I have great respect for her as well, but I have been somewhat disappointed with her lately, due to her failure to speak out strongly against anti-Muslim violence in Burma. The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, I would probably rank even above Mandela as someone who comes about as close as a public leader can to being admirable in all respects. If anything, it could be argued that he is too willing to forgive and have compassion for his oppressors. Not only does he oppose violence, unlike Mandela who at least for a time embraced armed struggle, but he is willing to give up Tibet's legitimate claims to complete independence in an attempt to satisfy a Chinese government that nevertheless continues in a relentless attempt to demonize him with outrageous falsehoods that no one who has actually heard him speak or read his writings could possibly believe. It is true, as the article points out, that he is a religious leader, but he is a religious leader who wrote an excellent book (one I am reading now) called Beyond Religion, calling for an ethical system that is not tied to any specific religion. But even if the Dalai Lama and perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi approach Mandela's stature, few if any other leaders today can do so.
But while Mandela's death was significant, I think even he would be disturbed or even appalled that it had caused the world to ignore the deadly violence that took place in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, the day before he died. I'm sure Mandela would want everyone to spare a thought for the hundred or so people slaughtered in the violence there, even at the cost of a little less attention on his own, hardly untimely death. Unfortunately, few in the West pay much attention to war and violence in Africa, since most people are unable to tell the CAR from Mali, Somalia, or the Congo, to name just a few countries recently ridden by conflict. In the US people would rather obsess about glitches in health care reform (and in Taiwan about political infighting or in the case of an appallingly large group of narrow-minded wackos whether some groups of people should be allowed to get married) than worry about people dying in a distant, impoverished country.
On the other hand, while a little more of a media spotlight on the CAR would be an excellent first step, it alone would not solve the problem. The French dispatch of soldiers to the country may do more, though considering their seeming reluctance to commit to too much, it may not solve the problem. But the French intervention in Bangui led me to think of another question. Whenever there is even a prospect of US military intervention anywhere in the world, there is a lot of opposition, both inside and outside the US. Of American opponents, some are on the right, not only the (rather rare) true libertarians who are genuine isolationists, but those who will oppose any intervention by the current administration simply because they will oppose anything Obama does (such that many of them will condemn him for not intervening forcefully enough, and at the same time oppose any intervention he actually makes). But for me a more puzzling group are those on the left. Though there are very good, logical reasons for opposing US military intervention in many situations, based on the rhetoric of some on the left, they would oppose any such action under any circumstances. But what would they suggest be done in a case like the CAR, or in the 1990s, Rwanda? Simply standing back while people get slaughtered? To me that attitude seems more appropriate to Ayn Rand disciples on the right. Obviously a non-military solution would be preferable, but I can't imagine one that could work in a situation that has deteriorated this far. Besides, it's quite possible that with a sufficient show of force, the foreign troops will not actually have to fight, as they may be able to intimidate what in many cases are little more than armed gangs (though of course the lessons of Somalia shouldn't be forgotten).
Of course it should also be remembered that the CAR is not Syria or even Libya. Despite what happened to the US in Somalia, it shouldn't take remotely as much of a military effort simply to prevent the relatively disorganized armed bands in Bangui from going on a killing spree as would stopping Assad from doing the same. This is why I personally have considerably greater reservations about the US taking military action in Syria than I would about it doing so in a country like the CAR. Perhaps a better question is why the US doesn't take a more active role in stopping violence in such places. It may be reasonable to say that the global perception, right or wrong, of the US as an overbearing wannabe world policeman precludes unilateral American action, but the US could at least provide active support for a multinational effort in such cases. Its lack of any apparent inclination to do so in impoverished, non-strategic countries like the CAR is as strong an argument as any other that US rhetoric implying impartial benevolence in its actions around the world is so much hot air.
But while Mandela's death was significant, I think even he would be disturbed or even appalled that it had caused the world to ignore the deadly violence that took place in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, the day before he died. I'm sure Mandela would want everyone to spare a thought for the hundred or so people slaughtered in the violence there, even at the cost of a little less attention on his own, hardly untimely death. Unfortunately, few in the West pay much attention to war and violence in Africa, since most people are unable to tell the CAR from Mali, Somalia, or the Congo, to name just a few countries recently ridden by conflict. In the US people would rather obsess about glitches in health care reform (and in Taiwan about political infighting or in the case of an appallingly large group of narrow-minded wackos whether some groups of people should be allowed to get married) than worry about people dying in a distant, impoverished country.
On the other hand, while a little more of a media spotlight on the CAR would be an excellent first step, it alone would not solve the problem. The French dispatch of soldiers to the country may do more, though considering their seeming reluctance to commit to too much, it may not solve the problem. But the French intervention in Bangui led me to think of another question. Whenever there is even a prospect of US military intervention anywhere in the world, there is a lot of opposition, both inside and outside the US. Of American opponents, some are on the right, not only the (rather rare) true libertarians who are genuine isolationists, but those who will oppose any intervention by the current administration simply because they will oppose anything Obama does (such that many of them will condemn him for not intervening forcefully enough, and at the same time oppose any intervention he actually makes). But for me a more puzzling group are those on the left. Though there are very good, logical reasons for opposing US military intervention in many situations, based on the rhetoric of some on the left, they would oppose any such action under any circumstances. But what would they suggest be done in a case like the CAR, or in the 1990s, Rwanda? Simply standing back while people get slaughtered? To me that attitude seems more appropriate to Ayn Rand disciples on the right. Obviously a non-military solution would be preferable, but I can't imagine one that could work in a situation that has deteriorated this far. Besides, it's quite possible that with a sufficient show of force, the foreign troops will not actually have to fight, as they may be able to intimidate what in many cases are little more than armed gangs (though of course the lessons of Somalia shouldn't be forgotten).
Of course it should also be remembered that the CAR is not Syria or even Libya. Despite what happened to the US in Somalia, it shouldn't take remotely as much of a military effort simply to prevent the relatively disorganized armed bands in Bangui from going on a killing spree as would stopping Assad from doing the same. This is why I personally have considerably greater reservations about the US taking military action in Syria than I would about it doing so in a country like the CAR. Perhaps a better question is why the US doesn't take a more active role in stopping violence in such places. It may be reasonable to say that the global perception, right or wrong, of the US as an overbearing wannabe world policeman precludes unilateral American action, but the US could at least provide active support for a multinational effort in such cases. Its lack of any apparent inclination to do so in impoverished, non-strategic countries like the CAR is as strong an argument as any other that US rhetoric implying impartial benevolence in its actions around the world is so much hot air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
