Conflict Minerals, or the End of War?

“The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries… Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House. So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact. Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country. The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth… Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts.” — New York Times, “U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan,” James Risen.

Today’s headline in the New York Times concerns minerals, lots of minerals. The U.S., in a mission to discover business opportunities in the war-torn country, discovered one trillion dollars worth of copper, lithium, gold, and iron spread across the territories of Afghanistan. The minerals had previously been discovered by geologists, but somehow had not been advertised as a possible business venture — strange, considering $1 trillion would do a lot to change a country which is largely dependent on foreign aid, trade, and agriculture.

I smell fish, and not simply in a conspiracy-theory kind of way, rather, in a this kind of thing rarely ends well kind of way. The U.S. may have been honestly scouting for business development opportunities within the country — it seems a logical venture,  to explore ways to create legitimate jobs and wealth for a country that has little supportive income not based in war and drugs. However, these particular mines were discovered two years ago, and are only now being looked into as a source for wealth. Why now? Is it because this mission for business exploration was only recently thought up, or is it actually because now is the most convenient time for this discovery? Two years ago, the U.S. deployed 4,500 additional troops for the war effort, and opium sales were at their highest ever. A year later, 17,000 more American troops were deployed, as well as a surge by other nations. The war was looking grim, and our faith in the country’s success was likely not very high. Did we decide, then, that it wasn’t the time for mining?

Now, the Pentagon has published the wealth of the mines to the world — in a perfect world Afghanistan would be able to sustainably develop these minerals and regain some independence. However, the placement of the minerals is ambiguous, leaving some very difficult questions to be answered — who will receive the money from the wealth? Will it be the government or will it be the locals? Will the Taliban strong arm its way back into the country — either bogging the U.S. further into war, or scaring us away — to take over such a powerful discovery?

These questions are the ones that lead to the ominous title “conflict minerals.” The Congo has Coltan, a conflict mineral used in electronics. Armed conflicts have waged over its wealth while people, mostly in the United States, continue to buy it and feed the fire. Will this happen in Afganistan? Introducing incredible amounts of wealth into an impoverished country often sparks “greed” (if you can call it that), and inspires desperate acts at securing the wealth for certain groups over others. This “business” discovery, will likely change the face of the war before it ever changes the economy of Afghanistan. According to experts, it will likely take ten years before the wealth of the minerals can reach its fullest profit potential. A lot can happen in ten years.

So, where is the fish smell coming from? I think its coming from the good old United States. Whatever happens next will be interesting. If conflict arises in Afghanistan over this wealth it will either give the United States a reason to stay in the country for much longer, or incite an offer to develop the mineral wealth ourselves and distribute it through our own means — we have the resources to develop the area sustainably, we have the knowledge of business, and the power to influence who bids for the product.

I honestly hope that none of this happens — I hope that an honest, environmentally friendly company which holds its laborers at highest value bids for the development of the land, creates a contract that spreads the wealth evenly to the people, and does not allow itself to be corrupted by the government. I hope that the Taliban is too afraid of this new wealth to interfere, and that the people are so instilled with hope and prospect that they take honest jobs working for the company, and share in the wealth without creating rebel groups. We’ll see what happens, I suppose.

Americans are Unwilling to Sacrifice baby Carrots or Twigs for Sudan

I just read this op-ed co-authored by George Clooney and John Prendergast published in USA Today. The comments to the article alone are fascinating.

Failure in the form of renewed war and hundreds of thousands more deaths — conservatively — is not an option. We often find ourselves looking at humanitarian crises and wondering what we can do to help. This is a moment where we can contribute to stopping one before it happens. — John Prendergast, George Clooney

John Prendergast arrested for protesting outside Sudanese Embassy, along with 5 members of Congress

The article itself essentially suggests an ultimatum set up by the U.S. government — if the Sudan is willing to make efforts toward peace between the North and South, as well as ending its conflicts in Darfur, we will encourage the resolution of their issues with the International Criminal Court (ICC); Prendergast refers to these incentives as ‘carrots.’ However, if any body within the Sudan promotes or follows through with violent action, the U.S. will intervene by speaking to China and Egypt — important economic allies for the Sudan.  These negative consequences to conflict are the illusory ‘sticks’ of the carrots or sticks theory.

In addition, it asks the Obama administration to use our International ties to help introduce and begin peace talks.

I have long been a supporter of Prendergast and his work — he has risked so much of his time and his life for the social justice and global peace which he strives to achieve. I will not argue his case for him, he does an excellent job of this himself. Although, I will point out, that George Clooney likely did not write this article, though most people who read it will surely attribute the work to him. It is the Clooney name that draws the attention required to stir people’s interests, genocide alone does not turn heads — here, we value celebrities (or at least enjoy demonizing them).

The comments below the article are really the most interesting part. Most of the people who comment reiterate the same points over and over — 1. America should mind its own business, 2. We don’t have enough money, 3. We don’t want to lose more troops, 4. Clooney should go over and solve the issue himself. One person even tries to compare the issue to the Tobacco industry, which he/she finds more offensive.

Although not surprising, it is alarming how selfish Americans can be, and how blinded by their own privilege.  I am a lower-middle class American, working a job that pays $2.65 an hour plus tips, despite having a bachelors degree. I know that what we see as The American Dream has been harder to come by as of late. I also know that there are people in America who are starving and homeless. However, I do not believe they are the ones reading opinion articles in USA Today and taking the time to comment on them.  For the most part, these people have never faced a war, famine, wide-spread disease, genocide, or true poverty. And yet, they argue that the U.S. should mind its own business and ignore the deaths of others. Imagine a world in which each nation said, “we will not interfere in other’s affairs.” Should Hitler have been allowed to decimate the Jewish population across Europe? Should the Tutsi have been allowed to kill hundreds of thousands of Hutu’s in Rwanda, as they were in 2004? If we are taking on a ‘mind your own business’ mentality, than this is what we advocate — leaders who can destroy thousands of lives with no repercussions.

Perhaps we should sit back and watch, as millions of women, children, and men in African nations fight for the ability to survive on a continent that was ripped apart by European colonialism, ravaged by the slave trade, and then left to its own devices in forming Western-style governments out of European leftovers. Perhaps we should feel no responsibility in the conflicts of nations that try to make their way in an economy dominated by Western industry, despite their own inability to access the same technologies and education. They are too busy trying to form legitimate governments and feed their populations because the rest of the world is eating more than twice it needs to survive, and purchasing those goods at a price that does not factor in labor or equipment.

Perhaps we should look the other way, and feel no guilt at our own luxury, and then cry out in disgust and outrage when another human feels an inkling of responsibility for humanity as a whole. In our own desperation to cling to a lifestyle that entitles us to individual computers, $400 iPhones, and obesity that is off the charts — we forget that we got here on the backs of others. By stealing what wealth the continent of Africa had (Gold, Diamonds, Coffee, Men, etc.) for ourselves, we have left nothing behind but a legacy of war, which we now frown upon.

Whether we do end up handing Sudan carrots, or waving our sticks about, or taking no action at all — we should be ashamed of our own willingness to forget history, and that it was the West that won in Africa, the West that tried to spread its own system in a world that was living in relative peace before our presence, and it was the West that walked away and forgot the mess it had left in its wake.

Crimes have been committed in Sudan, crimes against humanity, crimes of corruption. Perhaps allowing government officials to continue to pillage wealth from the people, destroy their lives and remain blind to their suffering is easier than sacrificing something of our own lives. But, are we not just as guilty of these crimes against humanity and corruption if we too turn a blind eye to the dying because we are too greedy for our own wealth to make an effort?

Asking difficult questions: Should we reach 10 billion? Can we?

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people.  — Peter Singer, “Should this Be the Last Generation?” New York Times

In the opinion article quoted above, Singer asks several thought-provoking questions about human existence, population control, and over consumption.

First, he asks,  is a world without humans (sentient-beings) better? Or, put in the negative, is there any way in which a world without humans would be worse than one with us? Considering answers to these questions obviously require a stretch of the imagination — can we imagine a world in which there are no people or humanoid species? If so, what do you see? Do you see a world in which our ivory towers and landfills are dissolved by natural life?

I imagine a world in which our synthetic materials and surfaces become engulfed by vine and tree. Where landfills eventually degrade without the weight of further contribution. And though their materials continue to destroy countless lives through contamination and suffocation, within centuries of our extinction their effect will flat line. The climate will continue on its natural cycle, but it will not be fed by our destructive actions, and the changes that will go unstudied, unrecorded, unpredicted, will readjust to a rhythmic pattern. No artificial intelligence will be created that could remove our “humanity,” our last emotional ties to the natural world — because everything we were will have been given back to the earth. No nuclear war will threaten the existence of every species on the planet, because no petty arguments over territory or ideology will persist. No holocaust or genocide will ever occur, no rape or humanitarian crisis — because non-sentient animals are not capable of such cruelty. The question is, what about this existence would be worse? Can you think of anything?

I could argue that the value of thought itself — the abstract, the fantasy, the creation of art and music, would be lost. Though they hold no natural value, these things are the most valuable we have on earth. But, without mankind, who would miss them? These things are only valuable because we’re here to desire them, to think them.

The next provocative question the article asks, can a being which has not been brought into existence have a right to come into being? Not only do we encounter the issue of sterilization and population control, but also abortion. Can a being which has never lived, have a right to do just that? Can each egg in a woman’s womb have rights? If so, should it not be a crime in itself to not reproduce? This is a frightening thought, but why? Its frightening because we do not require birth, nor do we give birth because it is right or just. We do not reproduce because we believe that our eggs have a right to fertilization. But, when one threatens that non-existent right, we find ourselves offended — not for the unborn, but for ourselves.

China’s one-child law has met extreme controversy — it has also failed in many ways. Parents who desire sons have killed their first child so they could have a second. Families have given away one child in favor of trying for another. Disease and genetic abnormality are an automatic curse for a family that depends on children to take care of them when they are too old to work any longer. These are problems that would not easily be conquered on a global scale. But, my question is, do children that are alive have more rights than those that have never existed? Can we ignore the life of our first born child, for the rights to our second?

The children alive today — my four-year-old cousin or two-year-old niece — are their rights already so secure that we can think of the unborn child’s over theirs? More accurately, we argue for our own rights to give birth, over their rights to a future. We debate population control as if future babies were floating visibly above our heads, waiting to fall to earth. As if they already existed somewhere, and that not reproducing resulted in their death before birth. We ignore the children already among us, the ones who will have to survive in this world long after we’re gone. Don’t they have the right to live in a world that is not so overcrowded that millions have to starve everyday? After all, in 2004, every six seconds a child died of starvation (and population has increased since then). We can’t feed the children already alive on our planet, and yet we have the audacity to argue about the rights of the unborn? Are we really arguing about their rights to live? Or are we arguing our own rights to reproduce and make ourselves feel important, and loved by our children?

On that note, Singer also asks questions about why we have children — do we reproduce for our own interests, or for the interests of the unborn child. If the latter, which I would argue should always be the case, than what are the standards we hold for the child as far as quality of life? If we are giving birth for the child’s sake, then our expectations for their life should be quantified. We should be capable of expressing what terms under which a child should be born — if a child is born for his or her sake, they should have access to basic needs. They should have the opportunity for potential growth, experience, and life expectancy. They should be born into an environment that is healthy, encouraging, and supportive. Otherwise, their birth was not for their own sake, but for ours. Either as a mistake because we were not aware of the risks of sexual acts, because we were not aware of birth control, because we wanted a child for ourselves regardless of the quality of its life. Of course, happiness or quality of life cannot be guaranteed. However, if we are producing children to endow them with their right to life, for their own benefit, than their birth should be beneficial to them.

According to Singer, future generations only face worse circumstances than those we live in today — they will undoubtedly face greater climate disasters and environmental problems, their children will have to make decisions about centuries of waste which we have displaced. They will be born into a world with more technological advances than any other — resulting in ethical decisions about their use. Children born today will live in a world with 37 ongoing conflicts or wars.

Are our own lives so great that we are excited to pass on this experience to another person? Or, do we single-mindedly reproduce because of cultural expectation and personal desires for parenthood? What I’m asking on an individual scale is — do parents, while thinking about and producing children, think — I can’t wait for my child to experience life? OR, do parents think — I can’t wait to experience my child’s life? The difference is the subject. Is the child’s life the subject of desire, or is their own? I often hear future fathers say things like, “I can’t wait to teach him to play catch,” or “I’m going to have a little soccer player.” I have never heard a future parent say, “I can’t wait for him to experience baseball,” or “I can’t wait for her to see Spring.”  On a general scale, we do not reproduce because we want to pass on the joy of life or because we believe birth is a right. We reproduce because we want the joy of bearing life for ourselves.

If we can see past our own desire to be the bearers of life, we could begin to solve a problem that is swallowing our planet, and is already resulting in 1 billion people (1 in every 7) to exist in hunger. Were they born because they had a right to live? Because life is joyful?

I know this is not a politically correct topic. And, whether for my own selfish reasons or not, I like being alive, and other people being alive. I value humanity, in many ways. I do not wish for our extinction (most of the time). But, I do believe that if we don’t quell our reproductive desires soon — we will face extinction whether by choice or not. Through our own violent destruction of one another, or hunger, or natural disaster, we will meet our end. There are more of us than our planet can bare, and we feel it as we fight for territory, for the space our families require to survive. In our rights to food, and water. We kill one another over ideology, over nationalism, over politics — but it all boils down to our rights. We don’t kill one another because of our ideas. We kill one another because we want to survive, because we know that this planet isn’t big enough for all of us and our unborn children.

Racism or Not?

So, a lot of discussion is generated (in my own apartment alone) about what racism is, what counts as a racist act (vs. ignorance), or what racism even means. Now, my roommate sent me a video in the middle of the night last night entitled, “What the Fuck, I don’t understand.” Naturally, I was intrigued, opened the e-mail, and watched the following video, which is an advertisement for Twin Lotus Herbal toothpaste out of Thailand. A lot of discussion is circulating about the video in Youtube comments, and the title of the video itself is “Funny/Sad Commercial.” Although I don’t give much credence to Youtube discussion in the way of debate, it is interesting how the “haha funny” comments and “this is so racist” comments mingle. Check out the video:

A blog about the commercial is posted here at Kiss My Black Ads. Most fo the commentators do not seem offended, although none of them point out that the ad is not racist at all, they seem to merely accept that racism is a topic which, if touched upon, is likely to lead to offense.

My belief, as a white woman, is that the commercial is so obscure that I wonder what the toothpaste company was even thinking. My assumption goes something like this:

—

Ad-Man 1: Our toothpaste looks like dog crap. How can we explain this in an ad?

Ad-Man 2: We could compare it to other things that don’t look good, but are good.

Ad-Man 3: Like licorice, or spinach, or mushrooms…

Ad-Man 1: Black people. People don’t like black people, they’re black, and they aren’t necessarily bad.

Ad-Man 2: Yes, but how can we show this in a commercial about toothpaste?

Ad-Man 1: Well, people don’t like black people because they think they’re like monkeys. And they’re more athletic. And they’re poor.

Ad-Man 3: What does that have to do with toothpaste….

Ad-Man 2: Yes, we could show a black man climbing up a tree to retrieve a kitten, but receive no thanks because he’s black and then he could go home, sad, and brush his teeth with our toothpaste!

Ad-Man 1: Scrap the cat in the tree–overdone. Make it a metal pole, to really bring out the inhumanity. And a balloon, something irrelevant. And, instead of brushing his teeth with our toothpaste, lets tie the whole thing together with him as the toothpaste.

—

Now, maybe that isn’t how the conversation went down. Maybe there was some real thought involved, some interest in showing the public that racism is as ridiculous as crying about a balloon and being afraid of another man. Maybe they meant to point out that sometimes something that is different isn’t always bad, but can in fact be quite good. Herbal toothpaste is to your teeth, as a black good Samaritan is to your balloon-retrieval — nothing to fear.

But, is the very concept itself racist? The use of a black man, and black stereotypes, over innumerable other black or brown objects that could have been compared to poop-paste? I’m thinking of facial masks that look like mud but make your skin healthier, oatmeal baths, putting strangely colored and textured shampoo in one’s hair, mud wrestling, caviar, etc. All of these things seem more comparable and appropriate and relevant, and I have only been thinking about this for about a minute.

So, is this ad racist by the mere act of mocking racism itself, or is it humanitarian and comedic at the same time? Can racism be comedic? These are questions which our society faces, and often refuses to discuss out of fear of offense. But, the offense has already been made.

Aubrey deGrey May Be a Genius, But He Could Learn From Hollywood.

Aubrey de Grey is a scientist who believes that if he were given $3 for every person (including children) in the United States, he would have enough money to develop a cure for aging. He believes that there is a person already living on earth, who will one day live to be 1,000 years old. How? Well, that is for scientists to understand completely. de Grey has a detailed plan, though, and from a non-science persons perspective, it sounds like it could work. The question seems to be, do we really want it to?

My argument is, definitely not. Although I applaud and respect de Grey’s brilliance, and his passion, I have to say that I am appalled by the thought of genetically engineering immortality for mankind. I can find only one explanation for de Grey’s proposal: He hasn’t been to the movies in sixteen years (M. Finkel, GQ 2010). This may seem like a silly idea, but, the fact of the matter is, de Grey is out of touch. He hasn’t seen movies like Aeon Flux, The Island, Resident Evil, Surrogates, and a thousand others that illustrate how messing with human genetics will lead to the elimination of everything that it means to be human. Who will receive immortality first? Of course, those who can afford it. We will create an elite race of the richest, most powerful men in our current world and they will never go away. Their power will only increase. Imagine the Supreme Court Judges never changing. Imagine dictators never dying, and ruling their countries for hundreds of years. Imagine all those who will be power hungry and desperate, and what they will do to receive immortality.

de Grey claims that the only fiction books he’s read in the past 10 years were the Harry Potter series. Well, he must have skipped The Sorcerer’s Stone, because even my eight-year-old cousin can tell you that the creation of the elixir of life motivated a demented and power hungry man to destroy everything in his way to receiving immortality. No good can come of this.

de Grey proposes a world in which there are no children. Now, I do not want children of my own (because I already think we’re overpopulated, and I find the idea of raising a small helpless creature unbearable), but, I do not want to live in a world without them. Children, it seems to me, are our only hope of change. Although the current generation of youth is staggeringly jaded, promiscuous, and socially-inept, I honestly believe that  it is because they were born as fresh minds into a world different than the one their parents grew up in, that they seem so foreign to me. The way I see it, the world is like a life crisis. When one experiences a crisis in their life, they go to someone outside the situation for advice, so that from an objective point of view, we can have a logical solution. Children are this objective voice. They grow up without any emotional ties to the “good old days,” and they reinvent social interaction, societal structure, music, art, technology — we need new brains, not just really, really, old ones.

Imagine the world leaders in the 19th Century being immortal, while the lower classes (who could not afford it) remained mortal. We would likely still have slavery, or at least tenant farming. Women would not be immortal, or if they were, they wouldn’t be able to vote. If birth had been suspended in 1905, would we have computers? telephones? Maybe. Or, maybe there would never have been new minds to think of such things. Maybe what we need for invention and innovation is rebirth. You can live a million years and still never be able to think beyond your first 13 years of life, in which you developed your learning skills, your ability to think abstractly, and your social constructs.

Imagine a world where you could potentially run out of new people to meet, because no new people were ever born, and you had your whole life to meet them. What if we had halted birth before Einstein? or Da Vinci? or de Grey himself? or Hawthorne, Melville, Thoreau? Before Washington, JFK, Obama? Before Mother Theresa, before Shakespeare, before J.K. Rowling? What if Steve Jobs had never been born. Or Bill Gates. Ending birth, will mean ending innovative creativity, spontaneity, prodigy. I am willing to sacrifice a thousand years of life, for the knowledge that someone who will be born in my place could be the person who invents teleportation, or a car that runs on air, or an appropriate means of lowering our population, or cures AIDs or diabetes, or ends the conflicts in Africa for good.

Also, de Grey didn’t pass his driving test. Now, I am pro-biking. I am also aware that there are plenty of people out there without spacial orientation skills or hand-eye coordination (everyone knows I should never be allowed on a sports team of any kind), but… the man can’t have been on a road trip and seen the wide open spaces of West. If the man can’t drive, doesn’t go to the movies, doesn’t read literature — should he be able to decide what is right for the social and cultural world? Just because he knows everything about science, and has a brilliant mind, doesn’t mean he is in touch with the spacial world. We live on a small planet, one which we are already destroying without also living forever. We can’t institute any means of population control as it is, and we’re already crowding out every other species on the planet. How does he expect to institute any kind of socially and culturally acceptable means of sterilization, without experiencing another eugenics movement? Would people with disabilities be allowed to be immortal? Would every race, religion, creed, color, age, sex, gender, sexuality, be allowed to live forever? Would no one be allowed to reproduce or would only the most privlidged? Who gets to decide?

Hopefully not Aubrey de Grey.

The scariest part of all of this – its tempting. It would be nice to live for 1,000 years. To have all that time to learn a dozen languages, read every book, see every place on earth… If it happens, who would be able to resist? What would we be willing to give to have it? Who would we be willing to step on. Lets face it, we have a history rife with stepping on others’ human rights to have some shiny new thing… and this is the shiny new thing that trumps them all.

other articles, blogs about this:

http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/humans/aubrey-de-grey-wants-to-wish-you-a-happy-200th-birthday_42775.html

http://www.sens.org/

http://heykmarie.wordpress.com