Articles by Biodiversivist

The latest issue is full of goodies

This month's issue of Science gave me lots of food for thought.

There was an article about Edmund Phelps, who just won the 2006 Nobel Prize in economics. It tells us that the U.S. swept the science Nobel Prizes this year -- analogous to winning all the gold medals at the Olympics. Putting it this way cheapens the whole process and is a reminder of the competitive nature of people, scientists included.

On the other hand, this is an example of how a country with enough wealth and education to pay millions of people to sit around on their butts and problem solve -- engineers, scientists, and economists -- can contribute solutions to the world's many problems.

Expect to see more solutions coming from India and China in the not too distant future. The three billion desperately poor of the world cannot contribute, having their hands full just staying alive. Those billions of potential problem solvers are lost to us, thanks to the tremendous rate of population growth that outstripped the economic growth, infrastructure, and education needed to keep them from being impoverished.

Biofuels are wiping out rainforests

Almuth Ernsting over at Biofuel Watch has been working hard to get the word out on a small problem: a billion tons of carbon going into the air annually, with the potential of about fifty billion more on the way. People are deliberately setting Southeast Asia's rainforests and peatlands on fire to convert the land into something they can sell to countries striving to meet their Kyoto obligations -- palm oil. To put this into perspective, there are about 8 billion metric tons of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere by people annually, 6.5 billion tons from fossil fuels and 1.5 billion from deforestation. This is much worse than just dumping carbon from a tailpipe because it also simultaneously destroys entire ecosystems. You get two disasters for the price of one.

Democrats must move to attract conservation-minded evangelicals before the Republicans do

The vast majority of green voters are Christian. Apparently, there just are not enough of them. One must also keep in mind that environmental issues have not historically split along party lines. Before their assimilation by the religious right, the Republican Party used to be the environmental party.

Here is an article from the Associated Press that pretty much sums up the looming "creation care" dilemma:

Dewitt said evangelicals will not call themselves environmentalists. They are going to call themselves pro-life ... But pro-life means life in the Arctic, the life of the atmosphere, the life of all the people under the influence of climate change ... Robinson said he voted for Bush in 2004 because of his opposition to abortion, but it was a tough decision, making him feel he was voting against the environment. If the conservatives want the Christian vote, they are going to have to address this ... The pastor feels like Noah cutting his first tree to build the Ark.

How ironic, cutting trees to build an ark. And there is this:

Rethinking ‘overpopulation’

"Overpopulation" is one of them. "Gay" is another. You can insist on calling yourself gay out of a stubborn refusal to let language evolve, but unless you are gay, you will be giving a lot of people the wrong impression.

The word "overpopulation" (which remains vague and poorly defined) has fallen out of favor and is rarely used in polite company. We can thank, at least in part, those who called for an increase in death rates and draconian restrictions on childbirth for that. They provided the fuel needed by hatemongers like Ann Coulter to make comments like, "We believe in populating the earth until there's standing room only, and then colonizing Mars."

It has also been interesting to watch, over the last 30 years, organizations like ZPG change their names (Population Connection) and evolve into, basically, women's reproductive-rights organizations, joining ranks with NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood. Having won the struggle for lower fertility rates, these organizations now fight a running battle to protect past gains. Read this article from the Associated Press to see how well that battle is going:

Abortion access in many states is being curtailed, activists are uncertain about the stance of the U.S. Supreme Court, and South Dakotans vote Nov. 7 on a measure that would ban virtually all abortions in their state, even in cases of rape and incest.

Correction: The original post said that NPG [not ZPG] had changed their name.