Posts Tagged sustainable

Population Bloom: We Are Not Bags of Garbage

David Beckham, Victoria Beckham, family, populationDavid and Victoria Beckham recently had a baby — their fourth, to be exact — and although I’m not typically one for celebrity news, The Observer ran an article condemning the couple as “irresponsible” and  “selfish” for their excessive family building. Have these people ever watched TLC?

The article illuminates a primary feature of progressivism commonly critiqued on this blog: Without proper “guidance” from an all-knowing Computer State, humanity is a virus.

This week at Ethika Politika, I write in their defense, spending much of my time summarizing the morbid views of such misanthropes:

Such claims are not new. Indeed, they have been around for as long as we’ve managed to doubt our own value, promise, and potential (I’m looking at you, Mr. Caveman), as well as that of others (and you, Peter Singer.)

For Thomas Malthus, the eighteenth-century scholar and notoriously wrong “population expert,” humans were(/are) dead-set on creating the same world that Mr. Ross fears — one with too many bodies, not enough food, and an existence “condemned to a perpetual oscillation between happiness and misery.” Tough luck.

For Paul Ehrlich, the more recent and more embarrassingly wrong “scholar” of population doom, humans are a “cancer” that, without forceful (er, “enlightened”) population control, will naturally tend toward catastrophe and mass starvation. If left to our own devices — via petty ole “freedom,” of course — we unruly beasts will feast and gorge and reproduce ourselves into an oblivion. For Ehrlich, the bulk of humanity can only be saved (or “sustained”) if we initiate targeted starvation, abortion, and sterilization of the unenlightened. These hapless folks — the chosen ones — must pay the price for humanity’s ultimate transgression: existence.

Under this vision, it is only logical that disdain be dumped on those who create new life. Our procreation decisions become nothing more than strategic factors in a number game of the “enlightened”:

Such a view assumes us to be reckless monsters, hopeless without servile submission to the robotism of an all-knowing Computer State. We are movers and users and Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Artificial Wealth: King Solomon on the Stimulus

King Solomon

Is King Solomon at odds with John Maynard Keynes?

I usually try to keep my political perspective out of my Scripture reading, but as I was reading Proverb 13:11 last night, I couldn’t help but think of the stimulus:

Wealth [not earned but] won in haste or unjustly or from the production of things for vain or detrimental use [such riches] will dwindle away, but he who gathers little by little will increase [his riches].

This would apply to plenty of other get-rich-quick-schemes, but our country seems to have bought into the faulty Keynesian notion that the government can cure bad decision-making by centralizing it.

In short, the government’s attempts to “create” wealth amount to what Solomon calls “wealth won in haste.” Governments are certainly capable of using some funds wisely, but this is rarely the case. Plenty of Keynesians would say this is primarily about stabilization, but even if that’s true, what are we trying to stabilize?

In the end, ours is a system that is overspent and spoiled.

Basically, there isn’t much point to “stopping the bleeding” when the body has too much blood in the first place. (Yes, it’s a problematic metaphor to begin with, but that’s my point.)

What I want to get across is that most long-term economic improvement takes time. There will be economic booms and times of rapid expansion, but that usually has to do with incremental (read: “little by little”) improvements made among free individuals.

Bolstering trade and innovation may not be as Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , ,


Panera Goes Nonprofit: Losing Growth to Help the Needy

If you’ve ever thought that Panera Bread Co. was too pricey for soup and sandwiches, you now have an opportunity to voice your opinions more directly.

Panera has recently opened a nonprofit store that will allow customers to pay what they want for a meal, and there are already plans to open additional nonprofit stores in the near future.

As USA Today reports:

“While the store does have cashiers, they don’t collect money. They simply hand each customer a receipt that says what their food would cost at a conventional Panera. The receipt directs customers with cash to donation boxes (there are five in the store). Cashiers do accept credit cards.”

The first store is named St. Louis Bread Co. Cares, and according to the USA Today article, its proceeds will be used “to train at-risk youths or to feed folks lacking funds to feed themselves.”

Giving money to help those in need is a lofty goal, but isn’t Panera just acting as a middleman between individuals and their target of charity? As I’ve expressed elsewhere, wouldn’t it be more efficient if individuals just diverted their dollars directly to those in need? They could certainly maximize their Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,