Malcom Gladwell writes: A thousand years ago, a group of Vikings led by Erik the Red set sail
from Norway for the vast Arctic landmass west of Scandinavia which came
to be known as Greenland. It was largely uninhabitable—a forbidding
expanse of snow and ice. But along the southwestern coast there were
two deep fjords protected from the harsh winds and saltwater spray of
the North Atlantic Ocean, and as the Norse sailed upriver they saw
grassy slopes flowering with buttercups, dandelions, and bluebells, and
thick forests of willow and birch and alder. Two colonies were formed,
three hundred miles apart, known as the Eastern and Western
Settlements. The Norse raised sheep, goats, and cattle. They turned the
grassy slopes into pastureland. They hunted seal and caribou. They
built a string of parish churches and a magnificent cathedral, the
remains of which are still standing. They traded actively with mainland
Europe, and tithed regularly to the Roman Catholic Church. The Norse
colonies in Greenland were law-abiding, economically viable, fully
integrated communities, numbering at their peak five thousand people.
They lasted for four hundred and fifty years—and then they vanished.
The story of the Eastern and Western Settlements of Greenland is
told in Jared Diamond’s new book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed. Diamond teaches geography at U.C.L.A. and is
well known for his best-seller Guns, Germs, and Steel, which won a
Pulitzer Prize. In “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” Diamond looked at
environmental and structural factors to explain why Western societies
came to dominate the world. In “Collapse,” he continues that approach,
only this time he looks at history’s losers—like the Easter Islanders,
the Anasazi of the American Southwest, the Mayans, and the modern-day
Rwandans. We live in an era preoccupied with the way that ideology and
culture and politics and economics help shape the course of history.
But Diamond isn’t particularly interested in any of those things—or, at
least, he’s interested in them only insofar as they bear on what to him
is the far more important question, which is a society’s relationship
to its climate and geography and resources and neighbors. “Collapse” is
a book about the most prosaic elements of the earth’s ecosystem—soil,
trees, and water—because societies fail, in Diamond’s view, when they
mismanage those environmental factors. (12/31/04)
more…

Philippe Van Parijs
wrote in 2000: Entering the new millennium, I submit for discussion a proposal
for the improvement of the human condition: namely, that everyone
should be paid a universal basic income (UBI), at a level sufficient
for subsistence. In a world in which a child under five dies of
malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s
population lives in a state of “extreme poverty” that often proves
fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem
wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the
wealthiest of OECD nations. Yet, in those nations, productivity,
wealth, and national incomes have advanced sufficiently far to support
an adequate UBI. And if enacted, a basic income would serve as a
powerful instrument of social justice: it would promote real freedom
for all by providing the material resources that people need to pursue
their aims. At the same time, it would help to solve the policy
dilemmas of poverty and unemployment, and serve ideals associated with
both the feminist and green movements. So I will argue. I am convinced,
along with many others in Europe, that–far from being utopian–a UBI
makes common sense in the current context of the European Union.(1) As
Brazilian senator Eduardo Suplicy has argued, it is also relevant to
less-developed countries–not only because it helps keep alive the
remote promise of a high level of social solidarity without the
perversity of high unemployment, but also because it can inspire and
guide more modest immediate reforms. And if a UBI makes sense in Europe
and in less developed countries, why should it not make equally good
(or perhaps better) sense in North America? After all, the United
States is the only country in the world in which a UBI is already in
place: in 1999, the Alaska Permanent Fund paid each person of whatever
age who had been living in Alaska for at least one year an annual UBI
of $1,680. This payment admittedly falls far short of subsistence, but
it has nonetheless become far from negligible two decades after its
inception. Moreover, there was a public debate about UBI in the United
States long before it started in Europe. In 1967, Nobel economist James
Tobin published the first technical article on the subject, and a few
years later, he convinced George McGovern to promote a UBI, then called
“demogrant,” in his 1972 presidential campaign. To be sure, after this
short public life the UBI has sunk into near-oblivion in North America.
For good reasons? I believe not. There are many relevant differences
between the United States and the European Union in terms of labor
markets, educational systems, and ethnic make-up. But none of them
makes the UBI intrinsically less appropriate for the United States than
for the European Union. More important are the significant differences
in the balance of political forces. In the United States, far more than
in Europe, the political viability of a proposal is deeply affected by
how much it caters to the tastes of wealthy campaign donors. This is
bound to be a serious additional handicap for any proposal that aims to
expand options for, and empower, the least wealthy. But let’s not turn
necessity into virtue, and sacrifice justice in the name of increased
political feasibility. When fighting to reduce the impact of economic
inequalities on the political agenda, it is essential, in the United
States as elsewhere, to propose, explore, and advocate ideas that are
ethically compelling and make economic sense, even when their political
feasibility remains uncertain. Sobered, cautioned, and strengthened by
Europe’s debate of the last two decades, here is my modest contribution
to this task. (12/31/04)
more…

BBC Nature –
Central
Asia’s tiny surviving group of snow leopards may soon lose a lifeline
that is helping them cling to survival. A project run jointly by
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and funded by the Global
Environment Facility, is scheduled to end in the middle of 2006. It is
successfully enlisting the help of local villagers in protecting the
animals, but needs political support. If the project is not renewed,
there are fears the leopards will not be able to withstand the poachers
much longer. There are thought to be only 4,500-7,500 snow leopards in
the wild, living in an arc stretching from Mongolia through to
Pakistan. Professor Oleg Mitropolsky, a zoologist based here in the
Uzbek capital, is an internationally-renowned snow leopard expert.
“There are two small groups in the western Tien Shan range (the name
means ‘celestial mountains’), one moving about on Uzbek and Kazakh
territory, of about 30-40 animals, and the other, 10-15 strong, in
Kyrgyzstan. He said, “Our most important tasks are to conserve the
surviving animals, and to link the two groups with a corridor, so they
can migrate and mingle. We have agreements with local communities in
the three countries, by which they undertake to protect natural
resources. We have good local contacts: there were three cases where
leopards were shot for their pelts, and we talked to the village
chiefs.” The project supports the villages, not by paying them directly
but by improving water and gas supplies, to reduce deforestation and
encourage people to stay put. This helps to keep poachers at bay. …
“Four or five years ago”, he says, “the presidents of our three
countries met in a traditional nomads’ tent, a yurt. It was decorated
with the skins of 200 snow leopards. They hadn’t all been killed
recently, admittedly. But it set an example to the local hunters, and
they promptly took the hint. The leopards’ greatest enemy now is the
bureaucrat with a rubber stamp who issues hunting licences - not for
leopards, but for the marmots which are their summer prey.” The
professor has no illusions about the animals’ future: “They live in
areas so remote that if we fail to act the poachers will certainly get
them.” (12/31/04)
more…

BBC Health –
Eating fast food more than twice a week has strong links with weight
gain and insulin resistance, a US study shows. This suggests eating too
much ‘junk food’ increases the risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes, the
Lancet study says. Boston Children’s Hospital experts followed more
than 3,000 young people’s eating habits over 15 years. But other
experts said people who ate a lot of fast food were also likely have
generally unhealthy lifestyles, increasing their risk of disease. The
2004 film Supersize Me documented the effects on health of eating
nothing but fast food for a month. Documentary maker Morgan Spurlock
gained 25lbs, and saw his health worsen. Statistics for the UK showed
that in 2001, 21% of men and 23.5% of women were obese.  Nearly
two thirds of men and over half of women were overweight or obese. …
Dr David Ludwig, who led the research, said: “Fast-food habits have
strong, positive, an independent associations with weight gain and
insulin resistance in young black and white adults.” He added: “In view
of the high and increasing rates of fast-food consumption, further
research into the effects of this dietary pattern on public health
should be given priority.” (12/31/04)
more…

BBC Nature –
Wildlife officials in Sri Lanka have reported that, despite the loss of
human life in the Asian disaster, there have been no recorded animal
deaths. Waves from the worst tsunami in memory sent floodwater surging
up to 3.5km (two miles) inland to the island’s biggest wildlife
reserve. Many tourists drowned but, to the surprise of officials, no
dead animals have been found. It has highlighted claims that animals
may possess a sixth sense about danger. Yala National Park in Sri Lanka
is home to elephants, deer, jackals and crocodiles. Praised for its
conservation, the park is also considered one of the best places in the
world to observe leopards. It is now closed after floods damaged
buildings and caused the deaths of tourists and employees of the park
and lodge. Yet, surprisingly, none of the park’s varied wildlife is
reported to have perished. Debbie Marter, who works on a wild tiger
conservation programme on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, one of the
worst-hit areas in Sunday’s disaster, said she was not surprised to
hear there were no dead animals.  “Wild animals in particular are
extremely sensitive,” she said. “They’ve got extremely good hearing and
they will probably have heard this flood coming in the distance. There
would have been vibration and there may also have been changes in the
air pressure which will have alerted animals and made them move to
wherever they felt safer.” (12/31/04)
more…