Curing the world's most terrible diseases and making sure that not a single human being ever has to suffer such pain and indignity as those afflicted with Guinea worm should be at the top of the list. There are many other important issues that come next, such as providing clean drinking water for all.

But aren't many of "the world's most terrible diseases" transmitted by bad drinking water? This has been the Western obsession at least since the Enlightenment: extracting "problems" from their contexts and then concocting rational "solutions" to them. First we "cure" the disease -- through pharmaceuticals, no doubt -- and later we'll turn our attention the the cause, bad water! But this problem-solution mentality ends up sustaining itself: today's "solution" creates tomorrow's problem to be solved.

Here's why I find food to be such a compelling issue: It's absolutely fundamental to our relationship to the earth; it's how we embody the earth, and a large bit of the damage we do to the earth stems from how we feed ourselves.  

But it also turns out that if we attend to building healthy soil, we not only eat better and with greater pleasure, we not only tread much more lightly on the earth, but our health improves and the great discoveries of the pharma industry become worthless.

As for Kristoff, I find him unreadable and a classic example of problem-solution mentality. For example, he prattles to no end about childhood prostitution -- he even went so far as to purchase a child once to save her from prostitution -- but in his Victorian fevers he never bothers to question the economic conditions that send children into prostitution -- conditions often created by the very neoliberal policies he champions in other contexts.

To get back to your point, "the environment" is not some isolated entity that we can turn our attention to once we've "cured disease." Environment is the engine that creates disease and health for the earth's creatures, including bipedal mammals.

Victual Reality

Guinea worm disease is hosted only by humans and once isolated from humans it becomes eradicated.  Filter water with nylons, like those worn on legs, and the water is cleaned from the larvae.  The problem remains due to cleaning laundry in the river.  Humans need washing machines or some method to avoid bare feet in the rivers then the water will become cleaned from this disease.

The two big environmental anthropogenic scourges, dracunculiasis and malaria, can be treated with nylons and mosquito nets.

In one column, how much death and illness from eradicable diseases? In the other column, how much death and illness from mismanaged land and resources, toxic emissions and other pollution, and catastrophic weather and other manifestations of climate change? How much is column one projected to increase and how much is column two projected to increase?

But I'm not so sure the issues can be so neatly separated. Mismanagement of land causes water pollution and overdrafts. Climate change increases drought and communicable disease rates. Etc.

Additionally, that method only perpetuates the old, counterproductive interest group environmentalism: Every sect has its favored issue and clamors loudly for visibility and funding. The ultimate result is a splintered environmental movement that's less effective overall.

Maybe instead of trying to identify which micro-issue is the most important, it would be more helpful to find common ground across many issues where synergistic effects can work. For instance, in addition to direct disease and death impacts from climate change, there are also impacts on the industries and economies of developing nations. The follow-on effect is that developing nations have less money to spend on providing health care and training health care workers. Net result: more death and disease. A coordinated strategy of climate change mitigation and adaptation, including the health care sector, to me seems a better general goal for environmentalists than a strict tactic of immediate triage.

Ped Shed Blog

1. I am not trying to be overly reductive but many of these issues are NOT one big inter-related thing- AIDS, for instance, has little to do with the quality of drinking water and as the other commenter notes mosquito nets, nylon, and anti-worm pills are just as important as clean drinking water as a cure for Guinea worm.

2. More on this point- I think this type of "it's all connected" mindset is exactly the problem- it prevents us from taking a clear-headed look at priorities and instead it dilutes efforts at focusing on the things with the highest potential benefit/cost ratio or just benefit overall for humans and the environment

3. As to Kristof, I think you characterize him unfairly. He has had many pieces looking at the underlying economics, but he happens to come to conclusions that you disagree with- for instance, that textile factories are a big step up for agrarian subsistence farmers in Asia.

For example, even if we massively reduced CO2 that will do nothing to shift R&D into poor people's diseases instead of baldness cures and Viagra. It will do next to nothing to improve drinking water for the poorest of the poor.

The point being, that I think that addressing these issues is a GREATER priority than addressing climate change right now. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but I think it is not realistic to assume that addressing CC by default touches on these other very serious issues.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

What do baldness cures and Viagra have to do with that?

You said: It will do next to nothing to improve drinking water for the poorest of the poor

An improved well is useless if it runs dry during a "1,000 year drought" caused by land mismanagement and regional/global climate change.

My point is that in many cases it's counterproductive to address developing-nation diseases in isolation, without factoring in the related environmental, political and economic aspects. I guess we disagree about how much land use, pollution and climate change affect human well-being, and how important it is to begin action right now.

Ped Shed Blog

My point with respect to diseases is that the current economic structure funnels more money into aesthetic cures and impotency drugs than on curing diseases that afflict poor people- there is no CC policy I have ever seen that would change this dynamic and if resources are finite I think environmentalists should focus more on immediate human suffering that exists right now- but we can disagree.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

CORDOVA, ALASKA -- Oysterman Jim Aguiar had never had to deal with the bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus in his 25 years working the frigid waters of Prince William Sound.

The dangerous microbe infected seafood in warmer waters, like the Gulf of Mexico. Alaska was way too cold.

But the sound was gradually warming. By summer 2004, the temperature had risen just enough to poke above the crucial 59-degree mark. Cruise ship passengers who had eaten local oysters were soon coming down with diarrhea, cramping and vomiting -- the first cases of Vibrio food poisoning in Alaska that anyone could remember.

"We were slapped from left field," said Aguiar, who shut down his oyster farm that year along with a few others.

As scientists later determined, the culprit was not just the bacterium, but the warming that allowed it to proliferate.

"This was probably the best example to date of how global climate change is changing the importation of infectious diseases," said Dr. Joe McLaughlin, acting chief of epidemiology at the Alaska Division of Public Health, who published a study on the outbreak.

The spread of human disease has become one of the most worrisome subplots in the story of global warming. Incremental temperature changes have begun to redraw the distribution of bacteria, insects and plants, exposing new populations to diseases that they have never seen before.

A report from the World Health Organization estimated that in 2000 about 154,000 deaths around the world could be attributed to disease outbreaks and other conditions sparked by climate change.

And yes, what I'm saying is that a $1 spent curing malaria, providing clean drinking water, etc. is better spent than on something like carbon neutrality. It boggles my mind that millions of environmentalists think that paying hundreds of dollars to questionable sources to "mitigate" their essentially meaningless personal carbon emissions, which will do ZERO to address CC, is a good use of money. All of that money put into an AIDS fund would be much better.

It's about priorities people, and environmentalists sometimes don't have the right ones. I include myself in that critique.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

The Stern Review is still the most comprehensive analysis of the cost/benefit tradeoffs. Is your stance based on anything more credible than Bjorn Lomborg's arguments? This is what Nicholas Stern had to say about the Lomborg view:

An alternative view, associated with Bjorn Lomborg, that it is agreed, places dealing with climate change low on the agenda, arises from comparing it with "other ways" of spending public money and suggests that they have higher social rates of return. There are important deficiencies in this approach. First, correcting an externality is a different policy question from spending public money. Second, the argument as conveniently put takes little account of the severe risks of very high temperature increases from climate change which we now know are possible, or indeed likely, under business as usual, and which cannot be reversed if they start to appear. Third, the costs of action for any given stabilisation level rise rapidly if action is delayed. Thus, this type of argument for low priority or for delay is completely unconvincing.

http://www.rff.org/rff/Events/SternReviewandEconomicsofCl ...

Look, I want to address global warming AND disease AND bad drinking water, etc. But the fact is that not all of it is getting addressed and some pressing needs may fall by the wayside when certain issues dominate the discourse.

Also, when I see people spending large sums of money on carbon neutrality when there is not a doubt in my mind that the benefits to humanity of that money would be much better spent it saddens me. Maybe I'm wishing for a rational calculus that won't ever exist, but I'm going to try.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

I do not consider it the responsibility of environmentalists to focus more on the problems of human suffering and disease. The point of environmentalism, in my opinion, is to ensure someone is looking out for the rest of the planet while humans go about improving their own lives.

I think, indirectly, environmentalist do reduce suffering and disease by making sure we have: natural systems for purifying our air and water; that there are organisms for us to look to for antibiotics, natural control of pests, food, other medical benefits, engineering solutions, et cetera; that we have healthy soil for growing adequate food; and an infinite number of other resources. This is what environmentalism is about.

If you are suggesting, Jason, that environmentalist should focus on those activities already among their concerns, but also important for reducing human suffering, I might very well agree with you. It is easier to save a natural area if the people nearby are healthy and employed. But it is difficult to set priorities. Suppose there is a village and we can restore the local forest OR build a water treatment facility. Which is better? If the forest is neglected any longer, valuable species and the capacity of the forest to absorb and release clean water is jeopardized.If we don't build the water treatment facility, the people suffer and are less able to support restoration of the forest.

Now, if you suggesting a major shift, like not worrying about polar bears until no one in Africa suffers from disease, it is a completely different matter. If we delay saving the biosphere from further harm, and focus on improving the human condition, there will be no biosphere to save and the human condition will eventually plummet even further. All will be lost.

It just does not seem to be an either/or issue. A better solution to the problem would be shifting money from activities like war to activities like fighting disease. THAT is the either/or question. Imagine if all the billions spent in Iraq had been spent improving the lives of the poor in west Asia and Africa. The United States would be the most respected nation on the planet. People would not only be less interested in destroying us, they would quickly come to our defense when we need it... like they did after 9/11.

I agree with much of what you post, Jason, but I don't undertand this. If environmentalists focus more on ending human suffering, they aren't really environmentalists anymore. Is that what you are asking? Are you wondering whether environmentalism is inappropriate in a world of human suffering? I understood your desire to include animal welfare. But in this case you seem to be aking environmentalists to stop being environmentalists.

Sorry for the long post. Two more items.

First occurred to me that Grist might want to devote a series of posts to defining "environmentalism". Perhaps distinguish it from closely related terms, like "conservation". What DOES it mean to be an environmentalist? At what point are you just a poser and at what point are you really doing something that has an impact.

Second, when I first logged onto the internet today, I was going to continue my informal study of Buddhism, but seem to be off track. Perhaps I'm not. Jason's question reinforces Siddartha's observation that life entails suffering. I guess we should all ask ourselves how we should go about reducing that suffering... I don't know where I was going to go with this, but I'll leave it as part of my comment... there must be a lesson here.

1. I believe that at the heart of environmentalism is sustainable development- I think many environmentalists have focused too much on the sustainable side and not enough on the development side- you're right that it's not an either/or but perhaps a rebalancing.

2. I think while environmentalists rightly draw attention to log-term problems sometimes I think this comes at the expense of short-term realities where people are suffering in the here and now, not in some theoretical future. This is the essential tension in sustainability- if you care about people 100 years from now shouldn't you care at least equally about those alive today?

3. I don't understand an environmentalism that thinks of humans as separate. In combination with point #1, I think extreme poverty is the worst form of pollution.

4. I once suggested a forum on the meaning of environmentalism. It was at the height of the animal welfare debate so Dave Roberts didn't think more philosophical debates were in order. Since that was a while ago maybe it wouldn't be a bad time to rethink introducing the topic. I think it is absolutely crucial. I am not of the "environmentalism is dead" school, but I think environmentalism has suffered from an identity crisis for a long time. Some discussion on the topic I think would be valuable.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

The money spent feeding and grooming the dogs and cats in this country is greater than the gross national product of some third world nations. In fact, the health care system for our pets is better than that found in many third world nations. Your stances on animal and now human welfare strike me as being contradictory.

There is no reason environmentalism should collect causes like lint on a sweater. Do you think PETA, the ASPCA, WHO, and USAID are doing an inadequate job and need our help? I do not understand why you continuously try to redefine environmentalism.

If your interests lie primarily with animal welfare and poverty reduction instead of issues like sustainably grown foods, natural resources, pollution, energy, conservation, and the biosphere in general (core, traditional environmental issues), then maybe you should hang out under a different umbrella.

The world needs specialists. Conservationists work to preserve ecosystems, health workers work to prevent disease, animal welfare activists work to give dogs and cats long comfortable lifespans. That is why we have organizations like WWF, PETA, WHO, and USAID. Environmentalists specialize in improving the environment. They may all be related, but you can't tackle them all with one organization.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

And although I always read with great respect the words of our learned friend Tom Philpott, I am afraid I must resist the criticism of "unreadable" that he flings at Kristof.  IMHO, Kristof has been doing admirable, even heroic work lately in several African countries, especially Sudan (Darfur) and Chad.

Part of the message that Kristof and Jimmy Carter want to get out -- and apparently our excellent Sunflower is on the same page, no matter where he is going with his "washing machines" -- , regarding tropical diseases involving parasites, is that with respect to treatment (the pharmaceutical aspect) and with respect to prevention (the low-tech mechanical aspect), a remarkably small donation would go a very long way.  (Draining bodies of standing water, which would lead to true eradication, is of course another, much more complicated matter.)

NK's column yesterday, however, which is if anything even more moving than that of last week on Guinea worm, about the terrible helplessness of rural women in Africa, is an appeal for more serious and more accessible medical services.  And that, presumably, would be rather pricey.

Interestingly, he proposes two new candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, hence, in principle, in competition with Grist's favorite, Al Gore, just acclaimed by the Academy: an Australian doctor whom NK compares to Mother Teresa, and an Ethiopian woman committed to women's health issues.

To return to JS's larger subject, we catch sight of the totalitarianizing side of his persona, e.g. here:
<<
We really need to do a better job of prioritizing the problems we address as a global community.
>>

"We"?  Who exactly are the people that JS refers to as "We"?  If he means something along the lines of "you and you and you and me," then how could that possibly, practically relate to "global community"?  (And "global community" is itself a rather sci-fi-ish-sounding expression.)

And what is "the environmental movement"?  Do we Gristmill readers all consider ourselves part of a "movement"?  Would we want to?  Do we all agree on anything?  E.g., Did we all mourn together when the Baiji was declared to be extinct?  Are we all celebrating together, now that "AIT" has won not one but two Academy Awards (brava, Sister Melissa!)?  My guess is, No, and No.

I am afraid I do not think of myself as part of a "movement."  Still less can I speak for some vague, ill-defined collection of hearts and minds that JS refers to as "the environmental movement."  Therefore, I refuse to participate in the poll.

And I refuse to consider "prioritizing," if that advice is directed to me (for example; to all of us personally, really).  A government agency should prioritize; a NGO should prioritize; other groups with a defined mission should prioritize.  But with us individuals, that UGLY word should not be in our vocabulary.  There are all kinds of appeals that we receive, for our charitable dollars: Are we really going to wait, till the GristMaster tells us to whom to donate, and how much?  What a crazy suggestion.  More on this below.

JS makes a lot more sense, when he writes, in response to another post,
<<
Look, I want to address global warming AND disease AND bad drinking water, etc. But the fact is that not all of it is getting addressed and some pressing needs may fall by the wayside when certain issues dominate the discourse.
>>

Twist JS a little, and he may come up with the goods, as here.  He is absolutely right, there are a large number of issues out there, countless maybe; how exactly they are related is not always altogether clear, pace Laurence, DR and Tom.  He is right to suggest that the same heart that has a place for CC-as-danger can also find a place for disgraceful public health issues in the developing world, and for animal welfare.  And he is right that "dominating the discourse" with one or two issues can be a grave moral failure, with truly lamentable results.

WiscIdea, who should never apologize for the length of his/her posts, they are all so thoughtful, interesting and well-written, writes  this magnificent sentence:
<<
The point of environmentalism, in my opinion, is to ensure someone is looking out for the rest of the planet while humans go about improving their own lives.
>>

That is true of all advocacy groups, whether their cause has to do with the environment, or public health, or poverty, or human rights, or Native American education, or animal welfare, or anything else.  Advocates always represent an under-represented client, and want to cry out against a danger or injustice, in the hope that others will pay attention, and will be moved to take significant action -- even as "humans go about improving their own lives."  Keep hitting on "improving," dear WiscIdea; suggest that there is no true "improving," without there being some new ethical awareness, attended by compunction, and a call to action.

We each personally must follow our heart, regarding advocacy, and charity.  "Prioritizing" is too cold a calculation to be allowed to enter in.  Of course, we should remain aware of all the humane advocacies of the world; and those of us who believe in the power of intercessory prayer are ever encouraged to include them in their own prayers.  But as for our judging which cause deserves our donations, and our activist participation, well, we know whom we especially love, meanwhile wishing the best to everyone else in this very large, near-deserted world, who is in need of a friend.

On the other hand, our bearishly growlingly closed-minded pal BioD writes:
<<
There is no reason environmentalism should collect causes like lint on a sweater. Do you think PETA, the ASPCA, WHO, and USAID are doing an inadequate job and need our help? I do not understand why you continuously try to redefine environmentalism.
>>

A remark of this kind indicates why it might actually be worth the time and effort to do a serious discussion of what "environmentalism" is, and is supposed to be.  That countless Africans are living miserable lives, and dying miserable deaths, on account of parasites, is not "lint on a sweater."  That dogs, cats and raccoon dogs in China are caged, beaten, terrified while in captivity, then cudgeled into submission as their fur is torn from them, still living -- or else they are simply plunged into boiling water -- , is not "lint on a sweater."

JS does very well indeed, by asking the kind of questions that he asks.  We importantly learn that the shared title "environmentalist" hardly unites us in any warm, intimate, familiar way.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"Primarily" makes sense in that conditional clause.  "Instead of" does not.  Neither 2, nor 3, nor 4, equals Zero.

BioD clearly does not understand that his parenthesis, "core, traditional environmental issues," is a highly selective and controversial catalogue.  He does not see that, for example, "animal welfare" and "poverty reduction" are values shared NOT AT ALL accidentally by many people who call themselves "environmentalists."

One wonders if he is noticing what is happening to "the umbrella," at least in Grist.  Clearly this is an effect of global warming: the diameter of the Grist "umbrella" has been dramatically shrinking, in the past year.  Experts point to an anthropogenic cause, and more specifically, to a Seattlo-anthropogenic cause.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It is astoundingly wonderful that the teachings of the Buddha should be so freely accessible to everybody.  Every one of us can meditate, and can be enlightened.  Every one of us contains the Buddha-nature.

Inasmuch as the South Asian and East Asian trappings of Buddhism get in the way, they should be ruthlessly discarded.  Well, not too ruthlessly; history, tradition, community all count for something.

Anyway, looking around in sympathy for sentient beings is a good thing, and reducing their suffering is a good thing, no matter how you get to that point.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Also, while the movement has come a long way since the anti-growth, neo-malthusiasn views of the 1970s, it's still dominated by rich white people (me among them) in developed nations whose priorities are not shared by the overwhelming majority of the people on the planet and may never be.

This is why I consider myself an economist first and environmentalist second- economics always has had a broad view of human welfare at its core whereas environmentalism seems to get narrower and narrower....

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253899,00.html

grist.org

Anyway, what can I say?

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Consider whether, just maybe, the environmentalists you (oh so somberly and regretfully) judge limited and narrow have considered the issues you raise and come out with a different perspective. Perhaps it's not that they lack your expansive moral sensitivity and analytical rigor. Perhaps they just think you're wrong.

You have a history, as BioD pointed out, of being incapable of deciding your own positions and priorities without insulting everyone who doesn't share them.

grist.org

Global Heating helps the poor.

"... economics always has had a broad view of human welfare at its core whereas environmentalism seems to get narrower and narrower..."

It seems that economics -- practiced by western nations -- has become more and more focused on maintaining the security of the uppper class. Capital moves freely around the globe in search for higher returns on investments while communities are left in tatters.

Environmentalism, however, has grown from protecting natural areas, reducing release of poison into our air and water, and school children planting trees to searching for ways to build a sustainable economic system and minimize damage to ecosystems. On the surface, it is about protecting the biosphere, but the long-range goal is preserving the human community at every level. And there is increased effort to include local communities in the process.

I realize you know far more about these issues. I'm just sharing my view. Feel free to enlighten me.

B: humanitarian |(h)yoōˌmaniˈte(ə)rēən| adjective concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare : groups sending humanitarian aid | a humanitarian organization.

It's clearly quite possible for any individual to be both, though not without some careful balancing of one's personal values (including ongoing adjustments to decisions of where to send one's checks). It's also possible to argue that it is a short-sighted humanitarian who disregards environmental considerations, and it is an unusually dispassionate environmentalist who disregards humanitarian values.  But that is not to say that these two perspectives, conditions or habits of thought are the same, or that they have to necessarily include or imply each other.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

What bigger issue could there be right now than global climate change??  If we don't get serious about climate change NOW, there will not be a liveable earth for our children or their children to inhabit.  Forget issues like Guinea worm, malaria and AIDS -- millions of people will likely be displaced by extreme drought, starvation, and poverty, not to mention increased flooding, hurricanes and rising sea levels.  Some scientists say we've already waited too long.

In my mind, humans have so devastated the environment in many places on this earth and consequently the ability of the earth to support life (look at what's happening in the Amazon for just one example) that I seriously question whether this small planet will even be able to support mankind several hundred years from now.  Oh, and there's the ability of humans to reproduce at a rate that the earth is barely able to support now, not to mention the future.  Over 6 billion people now with projections at 9 billion in the not-too-distant future.

My husband and I joke (and we're not entirely joking) that "what the world needs now" isn't love, but a good plague to seriously reduce the world's population.  And lest anyone say "that's easy for you to say," we both volunteer.  I'm so weary of the ability of humans to destroy not just each other but the planet that I think it may be the only way the earth will survive.  I know this is a draconian view, and I wish I didn't feel this way.

Lisa

Indeed, I will.  I'm inclined to stand with Jason on this, partly because I feel like a lot of the criticism against him also hits me; and I think there is too much.  It seems like every time he writes, someone has to tell him that he's condescending and insulting everyone.  Of course, when someone criticizes him for this, they tend to also be condescending and insulting.  I haven't been able to figure out who was condescending first.  

I am a person who has a somewhat broad education and has studied a few subjects in fine detail.  My intelligence seems pretty good (Mensa member), and I sometimes feel "right" about my conclusions.  When I think about it, I am pretty sure that relatively few people have given much consideration to the issues I care about.  That makes me a little angry, and it's something I'm learning to live with.  I try to avoid sounding condescending, but sometimes I fail at that.

I know what it's like to feel like people probably reached a different conclusion on account of their own biases.  As Scott Adams put it, "I believe that all people favor what they think is in their best interest and then rationalize it with absurd philosophical arguments." (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com)  For instance, "It's fine to eat meat because vegetarians kill carrots."  I can't have a conversation with a person who would say such a dumb thing, but it's very hard to cut one off without a condescending parting shot saying so.

In this case, I see David telling Jason that people have thought about the same issues and reached different conclusions.  I don't know if their thinking rises above the 'carrot' example.  If it does, then that sounds like a good discussion, regardless of whether someone comes across as condescending in someone else's estimation.  People naturally attribute some importance to their own view, especially if it's backed by some knowledge, and I don't think it's fair to keep making an issue of it.  If I state a fact and mention that I've studied a lot on the subject, it could sound condescending to some people.  I still think it's worth stating, as there may be a difference between the value of opinions, depending on how they developed.

I've been in online discussions where people would get upset when someone said something that wansn't preceeded by "I believe..."  As if everyone didn't already know that we say what we believe, and those beliefs may be more or less supported by evidence.  

I don't know why others come here, but I'm here mostly to better understand myself.  I care about the environment, and I want to refine my views.  I want to learn from people and share my knowledge.  I'm tired of these petty personality squabbles.  

Perhaps tomorrow I will have time to comment on the real subject.

And now I'm out of time.

I do not believe the majority of those calling themselves environmentalists support this idea, not even secretly.

(1) There are more effective and morally acceptable means of limiting the human population... education, availability of contraceptives, improved standard of living. An actual decline, if desired, would occur via natural attrition.

(2) The disruption caused by plague would likely result in further stress to the environment as people try to isolate themselves and live off the land. An extreme implementation of J.S.'s proposal would occur as the effort to preserve human lives trumps all other concerns.

(3) Those most responsible for damaging the environment would likely escape the worst of the disaster and take advantage of the opportunity to put in place strict martial law and demand full cooperation from the poor who survive.

And that is the few unintended consequences my tiny mind can come up with. I'm sure there would be much more horrible fallout from such an event, fallout no one can imagine.

Wishing for a plague is, to use my favorite Don Rumsfeld quote again, not very helpful.

1. No, I don't think global warming is the BIGGEST ISSUE OF ALL TIME. I actually think nuclear non-proliferation is more important as well as eradicating diseases like AIDS and malaria. I think global warming is well-within the range where we can avoid catastrophic damages and will and yet still have these bigger issues to grapple with. Again, if you disagree with me fine. I may be wrong. I'm just trying to show that there are environmentalists who look at the world and the facts and come to different conclusions about the priorities. And we don't have unlimited resources- whether they be money, time, or political capital. That's all.

P.S. Anyone who thinks a plague would be good for the world is in my view essentially advocating a position that is no different than a genocidal maniac. Sorry, someone has got to say it. I'm tired of environmentalists who think wiping out large swaths of the population is somehow a progressive position. Madness....

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Anyone who wants to debate me on any of these topics get in touch. I could put together a really nice forum with lots of graduates students and faculty and I think it would be productive. Blogs are nice, but they are a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction and as evidenced here can easily degenerate into accusations and name-calling instead of substance.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

He should acknowledge that JS and DR come across as unpleasant and abrasive, each in his own way, not always but often, and that that distracts from their respective messages.  He should be open to aesthetics, and to feelings.

And that is a fact of on-line life.  None of us really knows how we are coming across.  Regarding trollishness and flaming, there is a technical psychological term, something like Online Disinhibition Effect.  But more generally, even when we are civil, or assuming we are being civil, we come across differently than how we would come across were we face-to-face.  I have definite ideas about DR, JS, BioD, Amazing, Kaela, Willa, Sarah v.S. and the other regulars, which probably would not correspond at all to the reality of themselves, were we ever to meet.

But of course, in my own case, I assume I come across exactly as I am, constantly full of sweetness and light. : )

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Amen.  I for one will probably not post here again.

Peace,
J

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

This discussion is somewhat similar to the following hypothetical situation:

Let's suppose there is a blog called Mist, it's about helping Third-World and of course topics span environment, children mortality, diseases, lack of economic opportunities, etc. Then, a blogger comes along and says we have to prioritize: first, let's save all the endangered species. That would confuse and probably make some people mad on the Mist blog, because endangered species are important, but not the scope of the blog, and they feel like it is none of their concern, except as it may relate to the above topics. Second, this blogger suggests that we drop every other priority along the likes of malnutrition, AIDS rates, etc. and focus on saving forests. That would probably confuse some more people and create a continuing rift in the discussion.

My point, J.S., isn't that you are wrong, it's that you are talking to the wrong crowd. There are six billion people in the world and plenty of soapboxes, corners, blogs, conference rooms and other places to talk about why and how we must make saving children in 3rd world our number one priority. I'm not sure that it should be ours here on Gristmill, because we are not the Mistmill.

I agree that it should be a priority, but from I know of the natural and human world and natural resource management, it is this: it is generally better to eradicate long-term problems before they become short-term problems. NONE of us are structured to think this way, but suppose there was an abolitionist, anti-racist and anti-colonialist movement at the time of European expansion. How great would it have been to live in the world today when no one was slighted by five centuries of colonialism and slave trade?

By saving children now, we are doing a great thing, but we are not saving the next generation, because there will have to be more inputs, same as USAID constantly having to support the 3rd world. But teach a man to fish, and he will... overfish... Wait, umm, what I meant to say was teach a man to fish and make sure there are regulations, laws, and appropriate social barriers to overfishing, and he can feed himself, and maybe his children and their children indefinetely.

There is nothing wrong with developing cures for malaria, but with that we would also have to figure out a cure for sickle cell anemia, as the two diseases are very intricately and closely related. You say we must prioritize and get away from 'everything is connected' mindframe. Your own example just shows how everything is intricately and closely connected.

Or that there isn't a supervolcano that does the same thing.

I think wiscidea got it right, though - it's not an either/or issue. It's a both/and issue. Right now we're spending (according to the latest Mother Jones) about $275,000,000 a day in Iraq. Wow! Think of all the guinea worms we could kill with that money. Think of all the people we could feed, educate, teach to fish, etc. Think of all the conservation land we could buy, all the restoration work we could accomplish, etc., etc. That's where our priorities are skewed and that's what we should be looking at.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Converting to biofuels, intergrating wind into power grids, and making the air cleaner are things that people do that are in their self interests.  It allows them to keep on doing that which they have grown accustom.

A significant portion of environmentalism is about our own self interest.  People are getting interested in global warming because the weather supports fears that there may be a problem here that could affect us.

I think as the self interest associated with global warming continue to be understood more widely, that support for climate action will, similarily, continue to grow.  I do not believe that it will be as easy to develop interest associated with the Guinea worm as it has been to develop interest with clean air.  

Things that may actually affect us are more motivating than things that primarily affect others.  Environmentalism is not the charity that feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and clothing the naked are.  I can understand why the selfless act might be viewed as the more noble, and in this case, both are progressive and their interests generally aligned.

Or are you really that thin skinned?

An argument that we need to cure all the diseases of humanity before tackling GHG global climate disaster.  Otherwise WE environmentalists are actually responsible, by our emphasis on stopping GHGs, of killing millions!!  Liberal genocide.

Pielke just pulled this a few days ago here, coulter, boortz, and Limbaugh use this propaganda  constantly.  If we favor GHG remediation over adaptation we are dooming children in under developed nations to death.

Just tell these prostitutes for corporate feudalism that as long as reproductive rights for women are withheld by right wing governments, like the duuhbyaist regime, in the name of religion, but really to provide unlimited soldiers, cheap labor, and consumers for unlimited corporate growth..

...The exponential population growth will make food, medicine, and disease cures, no matter how hard we work at it, unable to keep up with population growth.  Viruses and bacteria and even parasites have a much quicker evolutionary rate than humans.  

If we don't limit population to a reasonable carrying rate that gives us all healthy living conditions and immune systems, no amount of medical breakthroughs will save us.

The four horsemen ride on the power of over population.  Overpopoulation maintained for corporate power using  large scale right wing religious brainwashing  and freemarketeer corporatarian political sophistry.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Actually, I must confess that in the 1980s, when Thomas Berry gave a lecture, on Earth stewardship, I think, here at Columbia, I behaved rather like your friend.  The subject came up, of elephants and farmers in competition for land and crops, in East Africa, leading to the killing of a number of elephants.  Father Berry expressed great regret for the loss of those elephants.  But during the Q&A, I aggressively challenged him (much to my shame), saying that "as a Catholic," I felt that in the case of a competition between wildlife and human beings, I could not help but side with the human beings.  Father Berry was saddened, but not embarrassed, by my comment, and answered that there is no either/or situation here, this is not a matter of competition or choice; whether we are more interested in African animals or in African farmers, we must understand that they are all members of the same living community; and when we want any group within that community truly to thrive, we are intending the same, with long life and happiness, for the entire community.

As you might imagine, that was a very important conversation for me, though it did not bear fruit right away.

I am impatient with people who pontificate self-righteously at me, saying I should not give money to one cause, I should give it to another.  A woman whom I met at an annual members' event of the New York Zoological Society/Wildlife Conservation Society, chided me because I was not a member (I was in fact a guest of friends), and instead was a member of the American Museum of Natural History.  "What good do they do -- they just dust off their displays of dead animals; but WE are concerned with what is alive."  But those displays inspire many people with a love of animals and plants; also, more importantly, there are many researchers at the AMNH who do cutting-edge work with living plants, animals and ecosystems.

Inasmuch as JS seems to be requiring us to "prioritize" the causes to which we personally donate, he reminds me of that shrill, boring woman.  I am pleased to say, though, that I do not think that that is what he is really up to.

FFletcher, you raise an important ethical distinction, between self-interest and selfless altruism (aka the virtue that Christians call "charity").  I agree with you entirely, but would just want to point out that while many environmentalists seem to be motivated by self-interest -- including the frequently expressed concern for the well-being in this world of their children and their children's children -- , many others have no such motivations.  Consider how focussed many environmentalists are, on the fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  The great majority of us have no expectation of ever visiting the place.  And yet, with no regard to ourselves at all, we feel very strongly that that place must remain untouched.

A more interesting opinion-poll question would be something like, "I am concerned about the environment, for the sake of : A. my personal well-being; B. the well-being of my children and descendants; C. the well-being of all people; D. the well-being of all sentient beings."  But perhaps that would be too personal, and should not be given in a public forum.

Amazing, as always, thou fightest the good fight.  Bit by bit, the spread of the sense of reproductive rights for women can only accomplish good things, however politically touchy that will be in traditional societies, especially within the Muslim world.

Citizen Tex, please write more.  I like your style.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

This discussion reminds me of unpleasant interactions with people who believe that if you're not trying to "save the _" (insert the cause of the month: rain forest, whales, starving children in Africa, Leonard Peltier, political power for the Democratic Party, etc.) than you're not working on the really important issue. This is a very clever technique designed and intended to paralyze people. Keep 'em in a tizzy, hopping around to wahtever the current fad is, rather than concentrate on anything long enough to actually have an impact. They can "act" be sending money to a "cause" that's physically remote from them, so they themselves never ever have to actually do anything. And they never have to establish a personal emotional connection with their immediate environs (i.e. where they live), so they don't defend it, fight for it, protect it, maintain it, restore it.

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Thank you for posting the definitions of "environmentalist" and "humanitarian".

Why DO we waste precious time arguing about what it means to be an environmentalist? Why DO we waste time trying to redefine perfectly functional terms? Each action has a positive, neutral, or negative effect on the biosphere. Clearly, environmentalists try to tend toward the positive end of the spectrum. Each action has a positive, neutral, or negative effect on human beings. Clearly, humanitarians try to tend toward the positive end of THIS spectrum. Some folks try to be follow both paths. And others follow a bundle of intertwined paths... more power to them!

Steve E.:

You are correct. This is a silly discussion. I have to ask myself, at this moment, what is more important...  finding means to preserve the biosphere or debating what "environmentalist" means and whether I should redefine it to include all of the other problems humanity -- and our fellow beings -- face?

I think it is more important to save the biosphere than worry about building a bigger tent. And I'm here to learn about THIS particular subject. While we debate whether we should even be environmentalists, entire ecosystems are collapsing AND children are dying around the globe. The time would have been better spent writing letters to the editor in support of whatever cause we know about, care about, and have the ability to partcipate in.

Maybe it would be better to rid Africa of a certain disease, but I do not have the power to do that. It is not something I've learned about. It is best if I focus on my interest in restoring native grassland habitat, creating safe GMOs, and a few other interests. We are all specialist to some degree and our knowledge and skills should be used where we can perform the greatest good.

There is one major advantage of this appoach, an advantage I'm surprised Jason has not considered. As an economist, he must understand the importance of not putting all of your eggs in one basket -- I don't know the precise term. If we shift the focus from global warming to eradicating, say, tropical diseases, we could get hit by an unexpected outcome of global warming far worse than anything we might imagine. We need people working on the problem. Likewise, if we focus only on global warming, a new plague might come tearing out of the rainforest because we weren't studying tropical diseases. Or if we decide we should not waste money on space exploration, we might find ourselves and most life on the planet wiped out by an asteroid while we were worried about carbon dioxide and Guinea worms.

We NEED DIVERSITY of interests. There are plenty of problems. We have no idea which one will be an emergency next year. We have no idea what we will learn from one problem that might be applied to another. So each person should pick one they are interested in and work on it.

Otherwise, as Steve E. pointed out, we risk "hopping around to whatever the current fad is, rather than concentrate on anything long enough to actually have an impact." Wise words.

Re: self interest. I don't believe that's where I'm coming from. Unless my not wanting to experience the pain of watching so much of the places I love - and the trees and the wild critters and the plants and flowers I've come to expect to find there - disappear or to think of them as disappearing even if it's after I die. (I'm speaking of climate change here.)

I protest much of the wanton development that happens in my area, for all the good it does, because each loss of open space or forest or field or wetland counts these days. The Earth has been degraded enough. The billions of people suffering from poverty and disease is part of it. It's another symptom of the underlying "disease" of greed, ego politics, corrupt systems, and so on.

I did a few calculations on the back of a napkin and I've decided what our priority should be. It is quite clear. Before we do anything else... before we save the biosphere, cure all disease, send robots to Mars, set up asteroid detectors and destroyers, transform our agricultural system to 100% GMO-free organic, persuade people to live in cities, find alternative energy sources, et cetera... WE SHOULD FOCUS ALL EFFORT ON ENDING WAR.

War sucks. It distracts people from learning about other serious problems, drains resources, harms the environment, prevents us from restoring some natural areas, provides an excuse for idiots to run nations, disrupts societies, kill our finest and brightest... I'm sure you can add to the list.

Let's all turn off the TV, stop wasting money on entertainment and status symbols. Let's shut down the entire world economy for a few months. We will spend all of our new free time learning about and discussing war. We will travel abroad and invite people to visit us. We will march on capitols around the globe... will get Dubbya and the President of Iran to sit down and talk. We will ask people what they want. Ask them why they hate one another and find ways to work out their differences.

ALL of us working together. Billions of people, for a few months, will focus once and for all on ending ALL war. It is clearly an enormous waste of resources.

We will have all sorts of focus groups... find ways to help people get along, organize truth and reconcilation meetings, find ways to convert the arms industry to peaceful purposes, find new jobs for those interested in being soldiers, find new outlets for aggression. Maybe organize an international paint ball competition... yeah... mock war for the masses and they can get together for a beer after "killing" each other. Think of the business opportunities.

Then, when we have finally ended all wars, we can take advantage of all the liberated resources, new international networks, new transglobal communities, and all of our experience educating people about war and organizing focus groups... and solve the next big problem.

If you aren't with me, you must be against me.

Why do you hate peace?

I gather that there are problems you consider a bit more pressing than global warming and feel we should be putting more money into fighting certain diseases. But this assumes that we can identify cost/benefit of mitigating global climate change, cost/benefit of adapting, and cost/benefit of other options.

How do we handle an issue like the effect of global climate change on pollinators? It is discussed in several places, but I'll insert these links to get the ball rolling (Thank you, A. Seigel.)...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/27/224353/551

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/4/121419/3197

This issue is also mentioned at the Wild Farm Alliance website and the Xerces Society website. I'm digging for more information about the economic value of honey bees and native pollinators.

It appears that global climate change -- just considering insects that pollinate various plants -- will be devastating. If it was part of a natural cycle, life would adapt. But the current rate of change will trigger a cascade of events and the final outcome is largely unknow. First, there is crop failure. We can probably put an economic value on that. But then, there are all of the wild plants that will be affected. Some of them are necessary hosts for insects that prey on crop pests. Do we have a full accounting of them? Can we replace them? And what else do such wild plants do...  the ones affected by a loss of pollinators? Do they feed other organisms we depend on? Do they stabilize soil? Do they alter the chemistry of the soil? Do they fix nitrogen? Do they remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere? Can we calculate the cost/benefit of a world without insect pollination?

Economists can place a minimal value on natural systems... I certainly agree with that. And such information can be used to make a case for preserving a natural system.

But there is no way, in my opinion, an economist can identify the maximum value of a natural system and say... no problem, the money would be better spent on fighting disease.

We cannot divert resources from mitigating global warming. To accept global warming and focus on other problems will almost certainly create an even greater environmental and humanitarian disaster, which will harm far more people than those saved by investing resources elsewhere.

Support?  Sure.  

However thats not what we're trained to do.
I'd be just like if we were arguing for other social issues like for instance K-12 education.

We don't know the politics and needs of other social issues.
And acting like we do would just cheapen the advocacy of those who really do.

_

It's like expecting a policeman to do the job of a construction worker. Or vice versa.

-David Ahlport