Lines in the mind, not in the world

The earth was formed whole and continuous in the universe, without lines.

The human mind arose in the universe needing lines, boundaries, distinctions. Here and not there. This and not that. Mine and not yours.

That is sea and this is land, the mind thinks, and here is the line between them. See? It’s very clear on the map.

But, as the linguists say, the map is not the territory. The line on the map is not to be found at the edge of the sea.

Humans build houses on the land beside the sea, and the sea comes and takes them away.

That is not land, says the sea. It is also not sea. Look at the territory, which God created, not the map, which you created. There is no exact place where land ends and sea begins.

The large places that are not-land, not-sea, are beautiful, functional, fecund. Humans do not treasure them, in fact they barely see them, because those spaces do not fit the lines in the mind. Humans keep busy dredging, filling, building, diking, draining the places between land and sea, trying to make them either one or the other.

* * * * *

Here is the line, the human mind says, between Poland and Russia, between France and Germany, between Jordan and Israel. Here is the Iron Curtain between East and West. Here is the line around the United States, separating Us from Not-Us. It’s very clear here, on the map.

The cosmonauts and astronauts in space (cosmonauts are Theirs, astronauts are Ours) look down and see no truth to the lines. They are created only by minds, and they shift in history as minds change.

On the earth’s time-scale, human-invented lines shift very quickly. The maps of 50 years ago, of 100 years ago, of 1000 years ago are very different from the maps of today. The planet is 4 billion years old. Human lines are ephemeral, though people kill each other over them.

Even during the fleeting moments of planetary time when the lines between nations are held still, immigrants cross them legally and illegally. Money and goods cross them legally and illegally. Migrating birds cross them, acid rain crosses them, radioactive debris from Chernobyl crosses them. Ideas cross them with the speed of sound and light. Even where Idea Police stand guard, ideas are not stopped by the lines. How could they be? The lines are themselves only ideas.

* * * * *

Between me and not-me there is surely a line, a clear distinction, or so it seems. But, now that I look, where is that line?

This fresh apple, still cold and crisp from the morning dew, is not-me only until I eat it. When I eat, I eat the soil that nourished the apple. When I drink, the waters of the earth become me. With every breath I take in I draw in not-me and make it me. With every breath out I exhale me into not-me.

If the air and the waters and the soils are poisoned, I am poisoned. Only if I believe the fiction of the lines more than the truth of the lineless planet, will I poison the earth, which is myself.

* * * * *

Between you and me, now there is a line. No other line feels more certain than that one. Sometimes it seems not a line but a canyon, a yawning empty space, across which I cannot reach.

Yet you keep reappearing in my awareness. Even when you are far away, something of you surfaces constantly in my wandering thoughts. When you are nearby, I feel your presence, I sense your mood. Even when I try not to. Especially when I try not to.

If you are on the other side of the planet, if I don’t know your name, if you speak a language I don’t understand, even then, when I see a picture of your face, full of joy, I feel your joy. When your face shows suffering, I feel that too. Even when I try not to. Especially then.

I have to work hard not to pay attention to you. When I succeed, when I have closed my mind to you with walls of indifference, then the presence of those walls, which constrain my own aliveness, are reminders of you.

And when I do pay attention, very close attention, when I open myself fully to your humanity, your complexity, your reality, then I find, always, under every other feeling and judgement and emotion, that I love you.

Even between you and me, even there, the lines are only of our own making.

hat too. Even when I try not to. Especially then.

[ By Donella Meadows. Article obtained from here ]

Scale of Economy

If the world stock markets are any indicator, the world economy is booming. Never before in the history of homo-sapiens, such wealth is produced and consumed. Never before in history, did human economy impact the ecology of the planet, as much as it is doing now. Is there a connection between scale (local, regional, national or global) of economic activity and the ecological damage caused ?

I came across this article recently, an example of the tensions between human economy and ecology, which are becoming commonplace today: Factory may destroy natural wonder.

I would not like to go into this particular case, without knowing the full details. But we can be rest assured such cases are in thousands across the world. It is useful to look at this phenomenon in terms of a generalized pattern — The players involved and the processes that take place.

The actual resource in question may be anything — timber or soda ash or bauxite ore or land for Dam construction. The pattern is very similar.

Players

Who are the players ? What is their level of dependence and connection to sites of production ?

• Investors: How many investors actually see the resource sites and ponder over the activities on those sites ? We can perhaps count on fingers. How many investors actually see the production facilities ? Very few. Most investors don’t even see the offices of the corporation they are investing into. Infact, many are short term investors or traders, who move capital around, at the click of a button. The only thing that matters to most investors is a “returns” number. Most investors are not accountable for the acts of corporations. Most investors don’t have a direct dependence on the sites of activity. Most investors have no emotional connection whatsoever to the places where their money is going.

• Corporations: Corporations are not dependent long term on the sites of activity. If the resource is exhausted, they can simply scour the globe for next cheapest source of resource.

• Resource guardians: This is the Achilles heel. If the guardians happen to be government, the future of the resource and surrounding ecology depends on the priorities of the government (and in turn, people) or the effectiveness of the whole government machinery in implementing existing policies. If the guardians happen to be local people, it depends on the priorities or the political strength of the local people. Is it a coincidence that lot of resource controversies take place around powerless local people ? From mines, to dams, to land-grabs ?

• Consumers: Modern industrial processes are so complex, most consumers have very little awareness on what goes into producing a particular product. Most consumers have very little direct dependence on the sites of production activity, and no emotional connection to the ecology of the sites.

In the globalized economy we have today, it is entirely possible that the players may be located in different parts of the globe. The investors may be in western Europe, the corporation may be registered in China, the resource may be in Tanzania, the production facilities may be in middle east, and the consumer may be anywhere in the world.

Processes

What are the processes ? What are the policy choices we make in driving these processes ?

1) Global capital mobility

• Policy driver: Global investment liberalization, including institutional investment through capital markets.

2) Global direct investment

• Policy driver: Direct investment liberalization.
• Enables establishing of operations by foreign corporations.

3) Resource movement

• Policy driver: “free trade” agreements.
• Enabler: Cheap oil which does not incorporate environmental costs.

4) Consumption

• Policy driver: cheap money supply to stimulate consumption.

• Driven by excessive marketing.

Immunity from consequences

There is no question that globalized economy creates efficiencies, and increases the overall wealth of the people. However, we need to take a note of the flip side as well. It disconnects important players — the investors and the consumers — from the ecological realities of economic activities. How many of us switching on electricity, are dependent on the land submerged for hydroelectric dam ? How many of us using aluminum products, are dependent on the sites of bauxite mining ? How many of us are connected to the ecology of the place ? How many of us using timber products, are dependent on the forest it comes from ?

The distancing of important players from the consequences of impact, clearly provides no incentive for those players to protect the ecology of the place. The integration of our economies on a regional level, national level and more recently, global level, simply intensifies the scale of distancing.

Hunter-gatherers live in the forest, agriculturists live adjacent to but within striking distance of the forest, and urban-industrial men live away from the forest. Paradoxically, the more the spatial seperation from the forest, the greater the impact on its ecology, and the further removed the actors from the consequences of this impact. (M.Gadgil, R.Guha in: This fissured land — An ecological history of India)

Butterflies

Within a five minute walk of my home is a hospital, which i never had a reason to visit until now. Fortunately . Just recently however, i came to know that this sprawling place fenced by a protecting wall, houses something that interests me. A “biodiversity park”. Just another example of how things in our backyard escape our attention, until the right time perhaps. So I call up the founder of the park, Dr. Rama Murty, and met him at the park yesterday. He gladly showed me around the six acre area, introducing me to the different plant species that they house. There’s lots of variety from medicinal plants to aromatic ones to cacti. As usual, this patch of greenery attracted a lot friends — birds, bees, ants, squirrels, .., and butterflies.

I was fascinated when i saw a bunch of butterflies resting on a specific plant, and asked Dr.Murty why that’s so. “It’s the alkaloids”, he said, “that attracts the butterflies”.

Back home, i googled a bit, and found this article which explains the alkaloid stuff a bit more. It also goes into a fascinating real-world example on ecological principles. check it out.

Mimicry: The Tale of the Birds and the Butterflies

The butterflies i saw at the local park were not Monarchs. But, the ecological principles are worth noting — Camouflage, warning colouration and mimicry. Even the number of each species is important in this particular ecosystem — “If 50% of the orange and black butterflies around are perfectly good snacks, the birds will never learn the lesson.“

Nature has these complex communication mechanisms based on colour, smell, taste, shape, sound etc, which humans are only beginning to understand. Lots of species don’t sense the world as we do. Different species operate on a different set of indicators. The relationships between different species which operate on these not-well-understood indicators, are fragile. It’s these relationships that matter in an ecosystem.

Marathon runners

One of the fascinating things about butterflies is that, some species are known to undertake extraordinary migrations during their lifetime. In North America, every fall, millions of Monarch butterflies fly from Canada and Northern USA, to their wintering grounds in California and Mexico. In spring, the butterflies fly back to their summer homes. This is as much as 4000 miles roundtrip ! Many interest groups follow this annual ritual closely, tracking the Monarch’s during their journey and even providing “waystations” — temporary stopping points for the Monarchs ! (see monarchwatch )

Long distance butterfly migrations are also observed in India. One such migration path is between Western Ghats (south west coast of India) and Eastern Ghats (south east coast of India). See this article for an interesting account of this Indian phenomenon — Flutter-by Migration.

Keep an eye on these ultra marathon runners, when you are outdoors ! We never know, they may be on a pitstop in a cross country journey !

Markets and Environment

(Image source)

The Market is the arbiter of economic activities in a capitalist society. The price of labor and goods, is determined by an ‘invisible hand’, depending on supply-demand push-pull forces. Whether or not these forces are allowed to operate in our economies, free of rigging, is a whole different debate. But, more or less, we do have some semblance of markets operating in all modern economies. To many ‘free market’ ideologues, there is almost a religious belief that markets can solve any problem. So, what is the market solution to protecting the environment ? If we really have free markets today, why is there a problem at all ? Is the market really the all-knowing hand of God, Or does the market have limitations ? Has the market failed us, or we failed the markets by not taking market limitations into account ? Lets Explore.

First of all, what does the cost of any product, typically include ? It includes cost of labor, raw materials and capital. Add profits and taxes, and we get the sales price. The idea is that the costs of the factors of production should be included in the price of the product. And this obviously includes the cost of the capital directly employed in producing the good or service. For example, the cost of machinery used to produce a car. That’s capital directly employed in producing the good. The price of the car includes (its share of) the cost of capital used to produce it.

The interesting thing is, the process of producing or using a product, may be affecting another valuable service. This is called an ‘externality’ in economics jargon. Example: Use of oil affects the climate service. The production of metals, first involves mining the ore from sensitive ecosystems which provide ecosystem services. The production of paper or timber, may first involve cutting forests which provide anti-flooding, carbon-sink and innumerable other services. All these natural services provided by nature may be considered as ‘natural capital’. So, the process of producing or using a product, may be depreciating ‘natural capital’. Obviously, the price of the product should include the capital depreciation cost it incurs, so that it presents a true picture of the costs of producing or using that product.

The crux of the matter is, we are not doing that. In other words, the prices of our products do not include costs of environmental externalities. Because price is the most important variable in a market economy, we have extremely distorted use of resources — An overuse of polluting resources such as oil because of cheap price, which also creates a disincentive for investing in and adopting cleaner technologies. Excess demand for products such as metals or timber or paper or plastics, without regard to environmental costs.

In Plan B 2.0, Lester Brown sums it up:

The central challenge, the key to building the new economy, is getting the market to tell the ecological truth. The dysfunctional global economy of today has been shaped by distorted market prices that do not incorporate environmental costs. Many of our environmental travails are the result of severe market distortions.

The market distortions occured because “The market” by itself, is blind to externalities. The market is like a super computer into which we feed costs of everything, and it turns out an optimal allocation. The costs of labor, raw materials, and man-made capital, are all automatically fed into this machine by humans who have a stake in getting their products & services valued. But nature unfortunately does not speak. The climate nor the forests, do not demand a return on their services. When costs of critical services are not fed into the market-machine, the market does throw out faulty resource allocations. Garbage-in Garbage-out. The important point is, the process of feeding environmental costs into the market-machine, is a political decision our societies have to make. It does not happen automatically.

As a practical example of how environmental externalities can be accounted for, here is a wonderful report specifically with respect to costs of climate change , and pricing of carbon. Stern review report.

Are these extra taxes ?

Often, environmental costs are referred to as “environmental taxes”, such as “carbon tax”. For some people, the word “tax” is an anathema. For them, a tax by definition creates “inefficiencies” (besides a hit on the wallet). It should be clarified that environmental costs are not “taxes” in regular sense of the word. These are actually legitimate costs that one has to pay, for depreciating natural capital through the use a product.

There are also proposals that this effort be part of wider “ecological tax reform” which aims to be revenue-neutral. That is, same level of taxation, but just a shifting of tax structure. More on that in a later post ..

Finally ..

Comparing our current market pricing practices, with faulty accounting practices of bankrupt corporations Enron and Worldcom, Lester brown warns:

Faulty corporate accounting systems that leave costs off the books have driven some of the world’s largest corporations into bankruptcy, costing millions of people their lifetime savings, retirement incomes, and jobs. Distorted world market prices that do not incorporate major costs in the production of various products and the provision of services could be even costlier. They could lead to global bankruptcy and economic decline.

Footnote: The larger question is, how did we humans come to this stage of having to consider everything natural as a “capital asset” or a “service” ? And, having to put a number on everything, to be able to preserve it ?

 

Capitalism 101

“The Economy, stupid”. Apparently, this was one of those bumper-sticker phrases which won Bill Clinton, the 1992 presidential race. Economics is a powerful force today, cutting through political, social and cultural boundaries, and having a massive impact on the world we live in. So, i thought i’d brush up my own understanding of the dominant economic paradigm of today, stripped of all jargon. Down to the very basics. Call it “economic liberalism” or “capitalism” or “free markets” or “neoliberalism”. All these are slightly different flavors of the same core idea. I’ll be a “cat on the wall”, so to speak, and not take positions for or against. I guess i have grown wise enough not to give rhetorical “death to capitalism” kind of calls. Value judgments shall have their day..

Capitalism made as easy as eating a peeled banana

The economic “system” is basically a set of rules answering fundamental economic questions. What are capitalism’s rules of the economic game ? There’s actually only one central rule – Individuals or private enterprises employ their capital (skills or goods or money) in self-interest and try to maximize profit for themselves. This translates into lot of sub-rules, or “policies” that free market advocates call for. I’ll mix them in a sort of free-style approach here, without being too academic:

• What is produced ?

  • Generally, a good or service is produced if there is a profit to be made. That is, ’selling price minus cost of production’ is positive, and the producer considers that the profit margin is worth the time, effort, and capital that’s put in.

  • A rational producer may end up selling something for a loss for sometime, for various reasons. But, it is generally the case that on continued losses producers quit the endeavor by themselves. Governments owned enterprises which continue even on mounting losses, for reasons like job protection, are therefore considered inefficient.

• Who produces ?

  • Private enterprises should be engaged in production, by either investing private capital of promoters, or raising capital from public through financial markets. Government has no business producing stuff, other than shared services like defense and infrastructure. If the government does wish to produce, it must survive in the marketplace without special treatment.

• How is it produced ?

  • It is the right of the producer to look for cheapest means of production – labor, raw materials and capital. Salaries are set according to marketplace. No restrictions on hiring and firing labor.

  • Technology may be employed if it justifies business interests. That is, if it reduces cost of production or increases potential sale price or increases competitiveness of the product. Technology and labor are fully inter-changeable, based on business interest.

• Who gets what is produced and by how much ?

  • The producer has the right to sell a product for highest possible price, obtainable in the market.

  • There are two basic ways to earn money. One, as labor salary. Two, as an investor of capital in a business, one has right to pocket the share from business profit. The question of who gets produced goods and by how much, is answered based on the buying power of the earnings thus obtained.

  • Taxes are sought to be kept at a minimum, as they may squandered or used inefficiently by the government, and because taxes are a bite on private profit.

In short, Market is the king. It is the arbiter of all economic activity, setting the prices of everything — labor, raw materials, capital, and finished goods – according to supply-demand dynamics. It is the “invisible hand” magically allocating resources “optimally”.

Global capitalism..

..is simply a question of scale. Just apply the same set of rules across nations, around the globe. The factors of production — labor, raw materials, or capital can be obtained from cheapest locations in the world (global sourcing). The finished goods and services, can be sold at highest possible price anywhere in the world (global marketing). A unified global marketplace, with free movement of goods, services, capital and investment.

Sales pitch

This set of rules appeals to so many people, so it must have some strong selling points.

Let me flex my imagination a bit, and see how it might appeal to a poor college kid. Ram has Rs 500 monthly pocket money, with which he used to buy just one shirt. Now, a new private enterprise started using a new stitching technology or take advantage of cheaper labor costs in Bangladesh, to be able to sell the same quality shirt for Rs 200. Efficiency – more for same money ! Ram is left with Rs 300 with which he chooses to make more money, buys a bunch of lemons and a squeezer, and sets up a lemonade stand. So, the world has Ram’s new lemonade services available. Wow. economic growth ! Meanwhile, the government has opened up telecom services to private operators, leading to fierce competition among them, and lower priced cell phone services. Taking advantage of this lower price, Ram decides to buy a cell phone using his income from part-time gig. Since everyone from Tata’s to Mittal’s to Ambani’s to are in the telocom game, Ram sure does have lot of consumer choice. As the phone guys queue up to Ram to sell their product, Ram enjoys his minute of feel-good factor, remembering days when his father used to queue up in government phone company, to get a land-line installed at home. How things have changed ! Better service, indeed ! Ram, who earlier used to settle for a shirt, has a new job and a cell phone. Is that called “trickle down effect” ? (Well, atleast he has a job until ‘Minute maid’ lemonades start coming down the highway )

This IS the sales pitch given in everything from Econ 101 textbooks to the WTO. Here’s a very frank WTO sales pitch. (Note: pdf document)

Philosophy

The view of man is that of ‘Homo Economicus‘..“a rational and self-interested actor who desires wealth, avoids unnecessary labor, and has the ability to make judgments towards those ends”. At the core of capitalism, is a somewhat non-intuitive idea — Individuals or private enterprises, by simply following their self-interest, will result in the overall good of the society through lower prices and more goods available overall.

“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society. (Adam smith, in “The Wealth of Nations”)

There is also an undercurrent of “Social Darwinism”. That is, ’survival of the fittest’ attitude applied on a social level. Each man, on his own !

 

Strawberries

Sun is the ultimate energy source powering our bodies, but i wish i could just stand on a beach in bright sunshine and energize myself. Alas, it doesn’t happen, other than maybe warm up my body a bit. Looks like we need some help !

(Image source)

This, the chlorophyll molecule, is our saviour. These molecules are densely packed on leaves, and infact give leaves the green color. Chlorophyll is the central player in a process known as photosynthesis, by which a plant converts the electromagnetic solar energy into chemical energy. Here’s the photosynthesis recipe: Mix sunlight, carbon dioxide from air, water, few other minerals from soil, and abracadabra!, you get glucose molecules which “store” chemical energy. I wish i could do that ! Infact, scientists have been trying to replicate photosynthesis, but to my knowledge they have not been successful.

(Image source)

Here’s a simplified equation for the recipe:

6 water + 6 carbon-dioxide + (sunlight) ——> 1 glucose + 6 oxygen

When we eat that strawberry loaded with glucose from photosynthesis, we need another magic to happen — To grab the glucose and covert that to energy usable by our bodies. That happens in trillions of cells in our bodies, by a process known as glucose catabolism. (the larger process known as, cellular respiration).

Here’s a simplified equation for this process:

1 glucose + 6 oxygen ——> 6 water + 6 carbon-dioxide + 36-38 ATP

Our body’s cells do an abracadabra using glucose from strawberry and oxygen from breathing, to get energy (think ATP as energy packets our bodies use). In the process, give out carbon dioxide which we breathe out, and water.

It’s interesting when we look at these two processes together:

To me, the most striking thing is how symmetric the equations are. Each is a mirror image of the other. Nature’s artistry in action ! Also, how intimately connected and dependent we are on trees and plants, for basic life processes — eating and breathing. I think most of us knew these processes from our school days, but maybe it’s ‘familiarity breeds contempt’, we tend not to take time to wonder about the beauty of these processes.