(You're getting four new posts all at once, because the previous posts were still in draft form when I wrote this one, so I coudn't publish until they were all ready.)
... The desire of many on the left to preserve traditional small-scale agriculture in the third world is also on a collision course with the goal of preserving the last remnants of global wilderness. High-tech agriculture wastes fossil fuels — but it spares land, by growing more food on less acreage. Genetically modified crops promise to do the same. Premodern third world agriculture doesn't rely on chemicals or genetically modified crops. But it takes far more land to grow the same crop by traditional methods than it does by means of industrial farming. The earth's remaining wilderness would be in even greater danger if the opening of northern markets were to create a financial incentive for developing nations to replace forests, savannas and wetlands with land-wasting peasant farms.
These are the alternatives, then. If third world agriculture is industrialized, then much third world wilderness will be saved from the plow. But most farmers will be forced off the farm, and therefore may not profit from the access of southern agricultural exporters to northern markets. If, on the other hand, third world agriculture is not industrialized, then the effort to enrich developing countries by means of exports from labor-intensive farms will inspire a vast expansion of peasant farm acreage — at the expense of the environment.
The argument here rests on seeing "the environment" as synonymous with "wilderness." Lind (the author) portrays industrial farming as a buffalo commons sort of solution, with the impacts of human use concentrated in a smaller area of farms, leaving more space wild. Standard industrial agriculture, with its reliance on chemicals and monocropping, does create such environmental sacrifice zones. However, he overlooks the ecological value of traditional farming methods. Multiple-crop strategies (such as shade-grown coffee) allow farmland to be shared with organisms other than crops. Thus, the adverse environmental impact of traditional farming can be less than that of industrial farming, either per unit of land or per unit of output. I don't mean to suggest that traditional farmers are "angels in the ecosystem" -- they can mismanage their land, often in response to the pressure of outside political and economic forces. But you can't estimate environmental impact by simply looking at acreage.
Lind's point about subsidy reduction hurting small farmers by encouraging industrialization of agriculture is an important caution, though not one that I think totally undermines the case for subsidy reduction (neither does Lind, though others do). There's scope for a degree of trickle-down if industrialized agriculture boosts third world economies -- consider that the urban poor in the US are better off than their counterparts in the third world (which is what displaced small farmers would become) because of the combination of successful businesses to tax and democratic government to use those taxes wisely. More interestingly, Lind rightly makes the point that subsidies should be ended if for no other reason than that the first world shouldn't be subsidizing giant agribusiness companies, who are the recipients of most subsidies (not the small farmers that the subsidies purportedly help). It seems that an end to subsidies would reduce these corporations' power, thus weakening their hand vis-a-vis small third world farmers, allowing those farmers to strike better deals. Also, the main stumbling block to ending farm subsidies is the power of the agribusiness lobby. So subsidies would only be able to be ended in a climate of reduced political clout for these companies, which would in turn also reduce their power.
Stentor Danielson, 13:47,
12.9.03
A self-hating archaeologist?
As I was thinking through possible charities to name in my response to question 5 in the previous post, I considered mentioning some archaeological/historical heritage cause, like the Smithsonian or the Dayton Natural History Society (where I worked this summer). Certainly I value those things a lot, and I'm grateful that the Oneida Nation and the Wallace Foundation have invested part of their resources in the archaeology programs that I've been part of. And as I wrote earlier, people often underestimate the importance of heritage. Yet on the other hand, I am often distressed by the overimportance that people involved with heritage place on their own work -- things like the inflated claims about the scientific value of human remains. In the end, it was too hard to put excavating an 800-year-old village above, say, feeding starving people.
Yet I didn't list something like Oxfam or even my local soup kitchen. The two examples I chose are, like archaeology, things that hit a personal note for me -- Mr. Holland's Opus because of the importance of music to my school career, and the ACLU because of my interest in politics and in particular in first amendment issues. Perhaps the difference here is that both of those groups are doing something for the oppressed, either kids in underfunded schools or people unjustly deprived of rights. It's hard to see archaeologists as being particularly oppressed (indeed, we take plenty of flak for being oppressors).
Ultimately, I think needs can't be met in strict order of importance. Archaeological material won't just sit there waiting until we end poverty -- it will be gone, damaged by either nature or humans. So while we should certainly emphasize the most urgent needs, we have to work at least a little on everything. This greatly complicates the question, because instead of simply determining which cause is the most important, we must determine which cause is proportionally most underfunded. I wonder how well I could trust my own interests -- now or as cultivated by greater study of the world -- to serve as a guide to that, since an objective empirical assessment would consume far too much time and resources (time and resources that could be dedicated to a better cause, even if their distribution is not optimal).
Of course, this all assumes I'm making a fixed level of charitable donation, and need only decide the distribution equation. That works fine in the example at hand, since Dave Pollard hypothetically gave me a million dollars to spend. But it's trickier in the real world, where the nature of the cause can alter whether I think I can afford to give. For better or worse, it would be much easier for me to turn down a donation request from, say, the school soccer team than from the marching band, even though the latter is probably not a much more deserving cause from an objective point of view.
Stentor Danielson, 23:51,
Five questions
I've signed on to play Dave Pollard's "five questions" game.
1. What one thing do you most hope to be remembered for after you die? I don't much mind if my name is remembered by anyone who didn't know me personally. For those who did, I would hope that it's something in the quality of my character, such as resourcefulness or insightfulness. I hope to leave a mark on the larger world, hopefully a practically successful shift in how society interacts with its environment. This needn't be some grand new environmental ethic -- I'd be happy with a concrete contribution to one element of the human-nature problem, such as a better way to think about and do fire management. I'd like to be someone who can reach a broad audience, not just an academic or managerial circle. If I make such a contribution, it's probable that I'd be remembered as the originator of it, but being remembered is a side-effect, rather than a goal in itself.
2. What do you think is the single greatest threat to the survival of the world today, and what do you think is the greatest hope? This depends on what we mean by "survival of the world." Short of an all-out nuclear war (which I don't see as terribly likely) or one of those asteroids that we keep hearing about, I can't imagine the human race being totally wiped out. Civilization as we know it may be brought down in a destructive and sudden way by ecological degradation. But what I worry most about is the fact that so many of the world's problems don't threaten its survival. When problems iminently threaten the survival of the world (or a part of it), people are kicked into action. But many injustices don't, allowing us to limp along, pretending things are ok. We'll be battling many of the same root problems -- ignorance, greed, etc. -- forever, because they're never catastrophically bad enough for natural selection to weed them out of our genomes and cultures. All that being said, I think the greatest problem we face at the moment is learning how to live within our environmental means.
The greatest hope I think lies in the free flow of information. This means more than just a naive sort of "if only people knew the truth" sort of thing. Access to information is empowering for those who are actively working to change things.
3. What single life lesson do you think is most important for young people to learn? I think one of the most important skills is the ability to be a critical participant in various aspects of life. It's too easy to accept the status quo, either because you haven't examined it closely or because you're fatalistic about it. Certainly, though, some elements of the status quo are all right, and fatalism can be a useful defense mechanism to avoid being swamped by despair. The other direction is problematic as well -- the temptation to stand outside of something and decry it. I think being able to find a balance between solidarity and rejectionism is crucial. I wrote about this sort of thing with respect to my own position as a pro-gay Boy Scout. Another great concrete sign of hope for me is when I see people doing just this -- for example, using capitalism's own tools to evolve it in a more just direction.
4. Of all the people alive today, who do you think would make the best President of the US? Why? Probably someone I've never heard of -- even just sticking to politicians, there are thousands of people out there whose positions and character I've never reviewed. I'd be hesitant to go for someone who hasn't had at least a little political experience, since politics involves a lot of skills that can't always be shown in a non-political situation (though I wouldn't hesitate to nominate someone like Kevin Drum as a policy advisor to someone with more proven campaign charisma). Limiting myself to people I'm familiar with, it's still difficult to say. Policy-wise, I think Al Gore was more or less right on the money, though he's damaged goods after the 2000 debacle. About the best I can do is to say that, of the people actually trying to become president next year, I'm cautiously supportive of Howard Dean.
5. If you had a million dollars, what would you spend it on? I'd start with the obvious -- my college loans (which are not all that big -- Colgate was very generous to me), and my brother's. I'm not sure how I could do that for my two siblings who haven't started college yet, but I'd seek financial advice and work something out. I'm tempted to say I'd put some toward my dissertation research expenses, but on the other hand I think the grant-writing process would be good practice, since next time I need money for research I won't have a bonus million dollars or the mentoring of experienced faculty. I'd splurge on some computer stuff, like a better monitor, a zip drive, and Photoshop. And whatever's left (no idea how much that would be, since I don't know what kind of loans my siblings have), I'd give to charity. What charity, I'm not sure -- maybe The Maroon-News, maybe the Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation, maybe the ACLU, maybe something else. I have enough trouble thinking up things as suggestions for birthday and Christmas presents, so I can't imagine trying to spend a million dollars. Most of the stuff I really want is pretty hard to buy (though I suppose I could set aside a little for, say, piano lessons).
If any of you would like to participate, here are the rules:
1. Leave me an email, saying you want to be interviewed. 2. I will respond; I’ll ask you five questions (I'll try to make them different from Dave's questions to me, but since those questions were so broad [presumably a function of him not knowing me very well], feel free to offer your answers to those as well). 3. You’ll update your website with my five questions, and your five answers. 4. You’ll include this explanation, and acknowledge me as the interviewer. 5. You’ll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.
After a three-year courtship with the Nature Conservancy, the Bethlehem Authority is having cold feet over a multimillion-dollar deal to sell the environmental group a 10,000-acre easement on the authority's Poconos watershed.
... The rare groupings of plants are shrinking — the land once measured 15,000 acres and is now at 3,000. The conservancy had proposed doing controlled burns — a method conservationists use to allow a forest to regenerate rare fauna. That method came under scrutiny three years ago when a burn in New Mexico got out of control and ignited a raging forest fire.
If the easement goes through, solicitor James Broughal said, he fears the authority would be liable if a burn got out of control because the authority still owns the land.
It's easy to think of ecologically necessary wildfire as something that only happens out west or in Australia, but here we've got the potential for some nearly in my own backyard. It's even the focus of the Conservancy's work in the area . The cynical side of me wonders if the controlled burn liability issue is an excuse for another concern -- perhaps the controversy over the Conservancy's higher-ups abusing their power and wealth. Granted, I can't make an independent judgement about whether the authority would be liable for an out-of-control burn (I wouldn't even know where to start), or about the need for someone to be burning the land in question eventually. But my red flag always goes up when someone uses a procedural objection like this, as they're often (though not always) cover for substantive objections that the objector thinks won't fly. So really, all I have to say is "neat, fire ecology in Pennsylvania."
Stentor Danielson, 17:12,
Fair trade activists aim to change that and get the story of how goods are made to consumers. So they certify foods as "organic" or "fairly traded" and forests as "sustainably managed." It turns out that most "fairly traded" items are low value commodities like coffee, tea, cocoa, and sugar.
In theory, there is nothing wrong with enticing consumers with such information, so long as such certifications are private and voluntary. But positive claims that a product is fairly traded can easily be interpreted as saying that competing products are unfairly traded. And what subjective standards should apply? For example, should purchasers be allowed to discriminate in favor of products "Made in America" on the basis that US labor laws are allegedly better than those of Russia or Brazil?
... The low prices in the market place are signaling to the poor producers that they should get out of growing low value commodities and produce something more valuable. The fair traders are also telling the poor producers that they can maintain their traditional ways of life.
The claim that fair trade labels implicitly badmouth non-fair-trade products is a reprisal of Monsanto's similar argument against labeling products as non-hormone. As in that case, the logic being used would equally ban any positive statements about a product.
The comment about the dangers of allowing customers to discriminate based on production process is strange coming from a libertarian magazine like Reason. Customer choice is the engine that makes the market work. So I'm not sure how restricting consumer access to information for the benefit of producers helps society. When you buy a product, you're buying everything the company produces -- both the stuff in the box and the externalities of the production process. So buying a product based on the "allegedly better" labor laws of the producing country is no different from buying it based on the "allegedly better" health benefits of the artificial sweetener in the product.
The argument about free trade distorting price signals also seems off base. It could apply if prices were being raised by fiat -- if, for example, a country mandated a certain minimum "socially just" price to be paid to coffee growers. In that case, the price being paid would not match the value of the product (though the discrepancy could be justified by other factors). However, what fair trade does is raise the value of the product. The buyers and consumers are willing to pay more for the product because of the "externalities" that are bundled with it, just like the value of the product would be raised if buyers decided they were willing to pay more for a higher-quality product. So instead of low prices for, say, ordinary coffee pushing farmers into higher-paying cocaine, it has pushed them into higher-paying fair trade coffee.
Stentor Danielson, 12:06,
Paging Dr. Multilateral
Here's my comic from this week's issue of The Scarlet:
I had trouble getting the Iraqi guy to look properly injured, in part because I drew the comic so small (nearly print size).
My commentary "Bush's Big Government Straw Man, with its comic, is also up. The topic is misleading rhetoric about recent environmental policy.
Stentor Danielson, 00:04,
... Returning [human] remains is presented as a way of making amends for the past sufferings of indigenous communities. Manchester Museum director Tristram Besterman said: 'By returning these remains now we hope to contribute to ending the sense of outrage and dispossession felt by Australian Aborigines today.' Receiving the bones, an Aboriginal representative said: 'The torment is ended, we now put an end to the torment.'
But in fact, repatriation masks the real and present remnants of colonialism in countries like America and Australia. Indigenous communities do face huge problems of poverty and marginalisation, which can only be rectified with practical measures like increased investment and improved services. Yet these problems are laid at the door of The Bones. Aboriginal rights campaigner Rodney Dillon told a Museums Association annual conference that 'People [in aboriginal communities] are walking around with their heads down because ancestors are not where they are supposed to be'.
Rather than improved rights and living conditions, Native communities are being offered spiritual communion with the bones of their relatives. This can't be a fair exchange.
This article starts off with all the usual stuff about all the vitally important information that society will lose if remains are repatriated. Apparently the author knows more about science than the majority of people who work in the area, since she reports that museum curators are distressingly friendly to repatriation. She worries that museums' role as collectors is threatened by repatriation, as if museums have nothing else in their collections except unjustly acquired skeletons. But it's the end of the article -- quoted above -- that I find most interesting.
First, the article underestimates the importance of dignity to people. Those of us in relatively affluent situations tend to overemphasize the importance of basic biological survival needs, and assume that those needs must be met fairly fully before moving on to psychological and social needs. But I'm frequently impressed by the degree of importance that down-and-out people place on dignity and self-respect, sacrificing it only when life itself is at stake. A combination of traditional views as to the importance of the ancestors, and more recent cultural emphases on control of remains as symbolic of native relations with non-natives, has made the remains of their ancestors central to many native people's dignity.
The argument also sets up a false trade-off -- either repatriate bones or give economic and political aid. Just stating it that way should be enough to show the problem. Yes, economic aid is vitally important, in my view more so than repatriation. But it's hard to see how refraining from repatriation would help with economic aid. It's not like the resources used up in repatriation could be so well spent in economic aid, unless we're going to sell remains on the black market and give the proceeds to native communities (which the natives could do themselves). Indeed, one of the main costs of repatriation is taking the inventory of museum holdings to determine what needs to be repatriated -- information that the museum really ought to have regardless of repatriation, and whose absence suggests that claims about the remains' scientific importance are overblown.
I would venture to say that repatriation makes economic aid more effective. The behavior of non-native scientists has been an important element in creating a strong distrust among natives for non-natives and their programs. Repatriation is an easy way to demonstrate good faith and a concern with native values, opinions, and interests. This in turn will make natives more receptive to and cooperative with the kinds of programs that work best for a non-native community helping a native one (that is, programs that engage with the people rather than just throwing money at them). In addition, the social and communication links that repatriation forges can be instrumental in helping get non-native society interested in and informed about the conditions in native communities, which in turn is key to creating the impetus for more substantive aid projects.
Stentor Danielson, 15:45,
9.9.03
Huzzah for the "history" tab
I just spent far too long trying to track down where I read about Bush claiming -- in gross contradiction to the actual facts -- that environmentalists block many forest fuel reduction projects. So now I shall blog the link, so as to be able to find it in the future if I need to: like so.
Stentor Danielson, 00:55,
Bishkek communists are up in arms over the authorities’ decision to remove a statue of Lenin from the city’s central Alatoo Square.
... On August 19, Kyrgyz deputy Turdakun Usubaliev -- a Communist party leader during Soviet time -- demanded the resignation of the authorities over the decision.
"A government which ignores the view of the population, the constitution and the laws of country doesn't have a right to exist," he said.
It hurts. (Though, granted, it's conceivable that Usubaliev may have been one of the tiny group of truly democratic-minded politicians in the democracy-stifling Soviet and Kyrgyz governments.)
Stentor Danielson, 21:00,
Downtime
Apologies to anyone unable to read my site the last few days. There was an unanticipated malfunction with brunchma.com (don't ask me to explain the technical details), and it took a little while for user accounts to be reactivated. You'll notice two new posts below this one.
Stentor Danielson, 18:44,
Picking your environmental battles
In the comments to a Chris Bertram post on global warming, paul gibson says:
The environmental movement blew much of its political capital complaining about minor things like pesticide use, which is dwarfed in significance by the potential effects of global warming.
I don't want to minimize the importance of global warming, but I tend to have the opposite reaction -- that issues like pesticide use are better, tactically speaking, for environmentalism than global warming. The crucial point is encapsulated in Bertram's post, which deflates one of those "global warming isn't happening; the scientific consensus is based on bad science" articles. The real consequences of global warming haven't arrived yet. It's not painfully obvious that something is going on. Many other environmental issues, like acid rain or soil erosion, are pretty hard to deny. You can argue that they're the price to be paid for the wonders of lassiez-faire or whatever, but it's hard to pretend the problem isn't happening. But because the real consequences of global warming haven't hit us in a way that makes their connection to the influence of carbon emissions on the environment painfully obvious, people like the author of Bertram's article can claim that environmentalists are worried about a non-issue. This may not convince serious climatologists, but it wins where it counts -- in the court of public opinion, which is the body that shapes both individual and government practices that could alter the climate situation. Anti-environmentalists know this, and I suspect they've contributed to the tendency to narrow environmental issues down to global warming and endangered species -- those are the two issues that a conversation with an anti-environmentalist almost always turns to, and the two issues they draw on in their critiques of environmentalism. It's harder to get lay people worried about human-induced climate change because they can plausibly deny that such a thing occurs.
Stentor Danielson, 17:53,
7.9.03
Making money from the forest
I've tended to be skeptical about the promise of tourism as a way to make the environment profitable without cutting it down and digging it up. It always seemed like it would be too small a revenue stream. But I just ran across this in an old column about the Healthy Forests Initiative:
The economic argument for increased road-building and logging is unfounded. It is contradicted by the U.S. Forest Service's own measure of forests' contributions to the nation's economy. Of the $35 billion yielded in 1999 (the last year for which a comprehensive accounting was published), 77.8 percent came from recreation, fish and wildlife, only 13.7 percent from timber harvest, and the modest remainder from mining and ranching. Roughly the same disproportion existed in the percentages of the 822,000 jobs generated by national forests.
debitage 
Farms vs. wilderness
