Sam D. and I had a talk over dinner last night. He recently attended a Council on Foreign Relations meeting meeting with Clinton Initiative folks where the International Energy Agency delivered their report. They are part of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes Japan and Russia as well as the United States.) These are high-level folks — World Bank, major investment companies, etc. — who are now very interested in going “green”. That’s Sam’s business interest as well — ethanol, wind power, etc.
Tied to the urge for going green might be a realization of the obvious. Climate change, yes, that’s coming for sure. But before that really kicks in there are lots of political and economic facts that will play out very very soon. If one lays the facts on the table the scenarios that might become reality become glaringly clear.
As China’s economy (and others — India) expands and booms their need for energy will too. They have no large reserves — so they are building huge dams (as has India) for hydropower, and are gearing up for coal consumption. I guess they have coal reserves and will soon be the great smoky continent. (I remember visiting my granny in Glasgow in the late 50s and early 60s — the city was black from soot and coal dust covering everything and the air smelled, always, of burning coal.) The great Asian dams seem to be short range thinking too — they will eventually eliminate the arable farmland downstream; the source of food production will have been plugged up. What will then feed these billions? Do they expect to purchase their food with their new industrial products as western nations have done?
China also has no hesitation or compunction about dealing with warlords, dictators and lunatics if they have the goods that China needs. One senses some possible run-ins from this policy in the near future.
Combined with the above, the only really massive oil reserves are, this study claims, where they are now known to be — Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. He who controls this resource flow can maintain his economy and lifestyle (and world power) — for now. He who doesn’t, will either get lucky with alternative power, will turn to nukes, to burning coal or trees or will shrivel up. I asked — “Aren’t there large reserves in Kazakhstan etc.?” Yes, but not like in the Middle East…out there they are mostly gas reserves.
O.K., so one can easily see why Iraq was of such intense interest. We all now know, if it wasn’t obvious before, that the pretenses for the invasion were just that — pretenses to control the flow of vital oil. From a generous POV one could say the U.S. (and the UK, so believes wee Tony) are just looking after their own interests, securing their political and economic future — something any being would do, who can blame them? (But at least admit that is what is going on.) Poor Tony Blair — does he really think Bush and Halliburton and Co. will divvy up the spoils and allow the UK to survive the coming shortages along with the U.S.? “Help me now gather wood and you can share my burrow when the snow comes? Be on my side now and I’ll throw you a bone when times are tough?” Is that what he was thinking? Have these guys, the Neo Con team, ever shown any generosity in the past?
Now, what if China, or Russia, decides that they too are entitled to these reserves that are being tapped, which are more or less on their doorsteps? What if they ask themselves, “Why should the U.S., the most energy inefficient and wasteful country on earth, be entitled to control OUR futures?”
Russia may not be able to do much about this inequity, being an exhausted giant, but China — China holds the U.S. debt (a debt the Republicans and corporate America ran up SO quickly) and has, so far, needed the U.S. as a trading partner, so they have been reluctant to play this debt card — to call in all the trillions that the U.S. owes. But threatened with lack or energy and stifled growth they surely will use that power if they have to. They can effectively bring the U.S. to its knees almost instantly — all they have to do is decide to call in these debts (they can also simply stop buying the Treasury notes and the U.S. will not be able to finance its economy via debt) and the American Century stops. Talk about looking after national security — the Republicans and the corporate lobbyists have practically given it away — we’re completely at the mercy of the Chinese. SUV and air con now for, well, groveling and certain urban unrest down the road. The U.S. is now a hollow trading partner, allowed to live as long as it serves China’s need (and that of the oil producing countries.) A consumer who buys the goods that China produces and racks up more debt. Of course, China wouldn’t want the U.S. to collapse — then its holdings of debt and assets would be devalued. It wants a flourishing U.S., but we will see how far that present practical consideration can be pushed when the oil gets tighter. History shows that when the going gets rough the behavior gets dicey.
I see more wars ahead — and larger ones — as the oil and other resources (like clean water) get tighter. The claimed justifications for these wars will be just as spurious and fleeting, as they are now, but the real reason will be, as always, survival. Immediate and massive reallocation of research and money away from oil and a debt economy are a way out — maybe — and things are not hopeless or inevitable. But if steps are not taken, then they surely are inevitable, it seems to me.
This all seems painfully obvious once one looks at the plain simple facts — and if one can ignore the fog of intentionally confusing and obscuring rhetoric and wordplay. But the obvious is always easy to deny and ignore, and we have a born genetic capacity to do so. Don’t we? We must! Sometimes it seems like the smarter a person is the better they are at deluding themselves…and deluding others, of course. Intelligence, combined with will, gives one the ability to analyze and reason — but simultaneously confers an equal ability to lie and deny, to ignore and deceive. Combine with a little charisma and dinner is served.
This is why intelligent people can be religious. That’s an arrogant statement — it presumes that religion and intelligence are incompatible, that anyone with any sense wouldn’t believe in unproven supernatural faith-based scenarios. But of course that is not the case. I personally might believe (believe!) that many religious beliefs are irrational and verge on lunacy — but I can both see their efficacy — their attraction and usefulness — and sense their beauty. One does not have to be a Catholic to stand in awe of the Sistine Chapel ceiling; be Muslim to hear the lure of the soulful cry of the muezzin and sense the power of the mass dance of the faithful in prayer; be Hindu or Jewish to read and enjoy a text that is often chock full of amazing and surprising metaphors and analogies. These dances, music, images, metaphors are, I sense, deep-rooted — they are like the neural propensities for grammatical structures that Chomsky goes on about — and are therefore similarly genetically inheritable. The dance that is religion has evolved within us, to be released and expressed in a thousand different forms, none of which make logical sense, and all of which, if looked at literally, require a large helping of denial. God is in the wiring, bequeathed by the genes.
To me, this is why the current (tiny) wave of atheism — the recent books by Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, for example — are also in denial. They deny that this propensity for people to believe is innate. Yes, they admit that religion offers many comforts and assurances, security and community — very attractive and seductive — but they stop short at admitting that we are genetically predisposed to believe, that it is in our very nature, a part of what it means to be human. Maybe an illogical part, but that all our innate evolved characteristics are not practical forever (context changes, the world changes) or even rational, from some points of view (does the peacock’s tail have to be THAT big? Isn’t all that just a wee bit of a wasteful allocation of resources?)
Rationalism can never win on pure sense and logic alone. Granted, religions are regularly used to justify horrors and despicable behavior, throughout history and this will never change — and rational thinking tells us these kinds of beliefs need to be wiped out — judged from the POV of the society or world at large at least these religiously justified behaviors are simply evil, counter to the survival of the species and commonly accepted morals — and in those cases maybe yes, religion needs to be smacked down. But what if the benign effects of religion are intimately tied to the dark side? What if you can’t have the good without the bad? What if the shared sense of community, for example, is tied to the belief that God has given this community a personal mandate, a moral rightness above all others? Is it even possible to mold and deconstruct the religious impulse so that only the socially and personally beneficial effects result?
I just finished reading the Jon Krakauer’s book Under The Banner Of Heaven, about a murder of a women and her baby (and others) by fundamentalist Mormons. The murders were ordered by God, it was claimed. The book also traces the history and origins of Mormonism — truly amazing stuff. Anyway, near the end the killer is on trial and the defense suggests an insanity plea as the only way to avoid the death penalty. However, as psychologists testified, the killer’s beliefs, while irrational, are no more irrational than the religious beliefs of other Mormons, or of those of almost any other religion. Mere irrational belief does not — in our current world — imply insanity. If it did, then half the U.S., at least, would be deemed mentally unfit. (Judging by the last presidential election I would tend to agree.) But that, pragmatically, is not going to happen, so the killer cannot be crazy.
(In a possible answer to the previous question — can religion be molded to fit a larger society? — the Mormon official LDS church capitulated over the years on some of their less acceptable — to the U.S. — beliefs. Polygamy was outlawed and blacks were allowed to into the priesthood. However, like a tube of toothpaste that got squeezed too much with the cap on, the pressure to had to find a vent — and radical and fundamentalist spin-off cults emerged, as they have with other religions that have attempted to conform.)
I think these crazy illogical leanings — faith, denial, belief — are not neurosis (unless one is the only one in town to have such feelings) but are survival mechanisms that have evolved within us. They may have outlived their practical use — like an appendix they may be “organs” whose use is questionable and marginal, but that are still with us, still used by us and using us.
Although I quoted from some article a week or two ago that claimed that believers — the faithful — live longer, happier lives (which wouldn’t be surprising) here are some excerpts from a recent paper that claims pretty much the opposite. If G. Paul is on the right track, then a lot of what I say above might want revising — because there would be, if this article is right, clear and practical incentives to abandon religion — besides the fact that it is fiction. According to this not only is religion disruptive, it is as dangerous as a burst appendix.
Thanks to 3quarks daily for the link to this.
Gregory Paul's article in The Journal of Religion and Society
Introduction
Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western nations, the United States being the only significant exception. If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published.
Further on:
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner [Benjamin] Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.
And further….
the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.
Conclusion
The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.
