This week's issue of The Economist shows a baby in free fall with the title "Falling Fertility." The subtitle is even more telling, it reads: "How the population problem is solving itself."
You guessed it, another right wing stab at Malthus and the doom sayers is here. And sure enough, in the very first sentence the editorial picks on Malthus for getting it wrong. How many times have we heard that one?
Well, there are a few problems. First, Malthus got it right: the population is growing faster than the food supply and for many people on this planet -well over 1 billion in case you wonder- food has already run out. They are starving.
"But wait a minute, not fair," you yell. We really do have enough food, we just can't get it to the right places. Or maybe we don't want to, you didn't say that but it is more like it. We prefer to eat it all ourselves and get grossly overweight (I can assure you that that problem will solve itself too!)
Whatever the story may be, I am sure it is of little consequence for those starving. To them there really isn't enough food. They have really outgrown their resources, albeit only locally.
Second, and this really goes to the crux of it all, all global problems solve themselves. The population explosion, the greenhouse gas accumulation, etc. etc. All these problems will solve themselves. It is just that we may not like the preferred solution. It may not matter so much with food as we are rich enough to shield ourselves, and it may not matter so much with pollution and climate change, at least not for a while. But eventually it will matter.
Third, the falling fertility that is "solving" the population explosion isn't much of a solution for the real problem. We all talk about the population explosion, but it isn't the sheer number of people that is the problem. It is the number of people relative the available resources. And what can we say about that? The population growth is slowing down because people use more resources. They are getting richer as the Economist says (hallelujah!)
The people in India and China are more prosperous today so like Europeans before them they need and have fewer children.
To the Economist this may sound like the angels are singing but to a smart observer that throws up red flags everywhere. Because if India and China are aspiring -and gradually coming up to -our standard of living (standard of waste would be more accurate), then 6 billion will be too many. i.e. we are already too many.
As a matter of fact, just bringing China up to our level would deplete all our resources.
I am sure this problem too will "take care of itself." ALL PROBLEMS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. It is just that -as I said before- we may not like the solution. And if we are smart, we may want to think about how to avoid it from happening. Because sooner or later, the "solution" will affect us rich Americans and Europeans too ! And once it does, it will be too late to preserve our beloved standard of living.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
rejoice, the recession is over...NOT
It is all over the news. The GDP grew by 3.5% in the third quarter putting an end to longest recession in recent history. Some experts are quick to point out that the "real" number might be even higher. Wow, it is finally over? Drink the koolaid while you can.
There are a few experts who are more cautious and who do worry that the good news may be a bit premature. They point to such factors as government spending and cash for clunkers. They also see other worrisome signs. Such as the fact that 1/20 houses in Las Vegas is in foreclosure. Or that the foreclosure wave is spreading to such far out places like Biloxi, MI, or Sioux Falls, SD, or Lincoln, NE. Should that worry you?
In Merced, CA, 1 in 27 properties is in foreclosure for a total of 3,092 units. Vegas has 40,408 units receiving a notice. Despite optimistic news from the nation's realtors, the negative amortization pay-as-you-go mortgages are still not factored in. Most of these are just starting to reset to their "real" monthly payments. These "real" payments are so far out of whack that we can expect that the vast majority of home-owners won't be able to pay them. Or they won't want to pay them now that their property is so far under water.
They certainly won't be able to pay if they are losing their jobs or have lost their jobs recently.
Unemployment is still rising and a new wave of big layoffs is coming. I am sure that will do wonders for foreclosures, and consumer spending. Christmas is coming and what a Christmas it will be!
Whatever the GDP might say, don't believe it. We are not out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot!
There are a few experts who are more cautious and who do worry that the good news may be a bit premature. They point to such factors as government spending and cash for clunkers. They also see other worrisome signs. Such as the fact that 1/20 houses in Las Vegas is in foreclosure. Or that the foreclosure wave is spreading to such far out places like Biloxi, MI, or Sioux Falls, SD, or Lincoln, NE. Should that worry you?
In Merced, CA, 1 in 27 properties is in foreclosure for a total of 3,092 units. Vegas has 40,408 units receiving a notice. Despite optimistic news from the nation's realtors, the negative amortization pay-as-you-go mortgages are still not factored in. Most of these are just starting to reset to their "real" monthly payments. These "real" payments are so far out of whack that we can expect that the vast majority of home-owners won't be able to pay them. Or they won't want to pay them now that their property is so far under water.
They certainly won't be able to pay if they are losing their jobs or have lost their jobs recently.
Unemployment is still rising and a new wave of big layoffs is coming. I am sure that will do wonders for foreclosures, and consumer spending. Christmas is coming and what a Christmas it will be!
Whatever the GDP might say, don't believe it. We are not out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
population explosion
According to the US census bureau, there were an estimated 1 million people on the planet in 10,000BC. Apparently since that time the human population has increased continuously until the present day. That seems a bit suspicious to me, but so be it. The rate of growth has also increased continuously and there is only one period of significant deceleration. That happened in the 1,000 year window centered around year 1.
In 10,000BC , it took an estimated 1,000 years or 10 centuries for the population to double. There are some minor fluctuations in the estimates but these are probably due to the guesswork involved. By 1,000BC we have an estimated 50 million individuals roaming around. Then the population suddenly starts doubling in approximately 500 years or five centuries. By year 1 we have 170 million people or just 30 million shy of the projected 200 million. And here we see the only noticeable drop ever. It takes another 600 years for the population to reach 200 million.
Starting around 600 the rates accelerate once again. 650 years later we have 400M. Then 550 years later we have 800M and 105 years after that we have 1,600M or 1.6 billion. We are now in 1905 and the doubling rate keeps shrinking. 65 more years until we hit 3.2 billion, then 40 years until we hit 6.4. Luckily, the Census predicts that it will now take 44 years (a whopping 4 extra) for the rate to grow by 50%. You could say, whew, finally!
So what is behind this incredible explosion? It appears that two factors were key. Both involve access to new sources of power and energy. One is the switch from manual and horse-driven labor to machinery and the second is the discovery and wide-spread use of oil. There is little doubt that the so-called "green" revolution is responsible for the biggest boost of all. Clearly what matters most is how much food we can produce. More food equals more people.
Unfortunately our food production system is unsustainable in the long run. It is a system whereby we input almost 10 times as much energy -from oil- as we get out. We get the 10 fold extra by burning through an energy source that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. And we are going through it in 100's of years. Clearly something is out of whack here.
When the oil industry gleefully reassures us that we are many decades away from peak oil, we may end up feeling relief. The gas-guzzler crowds feel vindicated that once again, the doomsday prophets have failed. But ask yourself this simple question. If we are decades (or even centuries for that matter) away from reaching peak oil, shouldn't we be scared shitless? We are talking about a resource that took 100's of millions of years to get to its current state, and we have been using it for what? 100 years? And we are within a few tens or hundreds of years of depletion?
One thing is for sure, the population graph won't level off nicely like the US census predicts. It may soon start looking like the stock market of the year 2,000. Except that this time around it won't be virtual or paper losses on the way down. It will be real people.
In 10,000BC , it took an estimated 1,000 years or 10 centuries for the population to double. There are some minor fluctuations in the estimates but these are probably due to the guesswork involved. By 1,000BC we have an estimated 50 million individuals roaming around. Then the population suddenly starts doubling in approximately 500 years or five centuries. By year 1 we have 170 million people or just 30 million shy of the projected 200 million. And here we see the only noticeable drop ever. It takes another 600 years for the population to reach 200 million.
Starting around 600 the rates accelerate once again. 650 years later we have 400M. Then 550 years later we have 800M and 105 years after that we have 1,600M or 1.6 billion. We are now in 1905 and the doubling rate keeps shrinking. 65 more years until we hit 3.2 billion, then 40 years until we hit 6.4. Luckily, the Census predicts that it will now take 44 years (a whopping 4 extra) for the rate to grow by 50%. You could say, whew, finally!
So what is behind this incredible explosion? It appears that two factors were key. Both involve access to new sources of power and energy. One is the switch from manual and horse-driven labor to machinery and the second is the discovery and wide-spread use of oil. There is little doubt that the so-called "green" revolution is responsible for the biggest boost of all. Clearly what matters most is how much food we can produce. More food equals more people.
Unfortunately our food production system is unsustainable in the long run. It is a system whereby we input almost 10 times as much energy -from oil- as we get out. We get the 10 fold extra by burning through an energy source that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. And we are going through it in 100's of years. Clearly something is out of whack here.
When the oil industry gleefully reassures us that we are many decades away from peak oil, we may end up feeling relief. The gas-guzzler crowds feel vindicated that once again, the doomsday prophets have failed. But ask yourself this simple question. If we are decades (or even centuries for that matter) away from reaching peak oil, shouldn't we be scared shitless? We are talking about a resource that took 100's of millions of years to get to its current state, and we have been using it for what? 100 years? And we are within a few tens or hundreds of years of depletion?
One thing is for sure, the population graph won't level off nicely like the US census predicts. It may soon start looking like the stock market of the year 2,000. Except that this time around it won't be virtual or paper losses on the way down. It will be real people.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Ford sends the wrong message
We all know Detroit is in trouble. But what are the automakers doing to resolve their problems? The short answer is nothing. They are doing business as usual and waiting for government bailouts.
Don't look to the automakers to help solve the world's problems. Quite the contrary. Ford is touting its new 365 HP Taurus SHO. Who on earth needs a 365 HP car to sit in traffic jams? But wait, that is not the whole story. The car is equipped with EcoBoost™ technology. What is that you ask? Well it sounds good doesn't it? And that is really what matters to Ford.
Whatever it is EcoBoost is doing, it is sending the wrong message. Ford claims you get a V6 engine with all the potency of a V8. Doesn't potency sound like either a sexual term or a drug property to you? No doubt Ford is hoping you will interpret it that way. A car on (sex) steroids. It is an unbeatable combination, especially if you add the feel-good EcoBoost™ to the mix. Green sex steroids for you America.
If Ford has truly devised a way to make engines more fuel efficient, they are also making it very clear why technology will NEVER solve our greenhouse gas problem. The reason is very simple: every time an innovation allows for better efficiency, the industry will use it to build bigger engines and then some. The net result is either neutral or in many cases negative.
Why would anyone need an eight cylinder car? Why do they need a six cylinder? The average commute speed is 27 mph in most areas. Cars not only pollute, they also make people lazy and fat. These fat people then develop all kinds of expensive chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension. All of it to the infinite delight of big pharma, which is ever ready to supply medications to treat such life-long conditions. Can't make money if the patient dies or heals too quickly.
Ironically enough, those same healthcare costs are now cutting into Detroits margins? How is that for karma?
Take my advice. Say no to Ford and its potent dildo. Tell them to build a small fuel efficient car. And then use it as little as possible. You will be happier and live better too. Ride your bike to a breath of fresh air.
Don't look to the automakers to help solve the world's problems. Quite the contrary. Ford is touting its new 365 HP Taurus SHO. Who on earth needs a 365 HP car to sit in traffic jams? But wait, that is not the whole story. The car is equipped with EcoBoost™ technology. What is that you ask? Well it sounds good doesn't it? And that is really what matters to Ford.
Whatever it is EcoBoost is doing, it is sending the wrong message. Ford claims you get a V6 engine with all the potency of a V8. Doesn't potency sound like either a sexual term or a drug property to you? No doubt Ford is hoping you will interpret it that way. A car on (sex) steroids. It is an unbeatable combination, especially if you add the feel-good EcoBoost™ to the mix. Green sex steroids for you America.
If Ford has truly devised a way to make engines more fuel efficient, they are also making it very clear why technology will NEVER solve our greenhouse gas problem. The reason is very simple: every time an innovation allows for better efficiency, the industry will use it to build bigger engines and then some. The net result is either neutral or in many cases negative.
Why would anyone need an eight cylinder car? Why do they need a six cylinder? The average commute speed is 27 mph in most areas. Cars not only pollute, they also make people lazy and fat. These fat people then develop all kinds of expensive chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension. All of it to the infinite delight of big pharma, which is ever ready to supply medications to treat such life-long conditions. Can't make money if the patient dies or heals too quickly.
Ironically enough, those same healthcare costs are now cutting into Detroits margins? How is that for karma?
Take my advice. Say no to Ford and its potent dildo. Tell them to build a small fuel efficient car. And then use it as little as possible. You will be happier and live better too. Ride your bike to a breath of fresh air.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
a most destructive fall ritual
We are in the middle of fall and that means plenty of leaves everywhere. Although leaves are a natural product and many people profess to be nature lovers, fallen leaves are not welcome in most neighborhoods. The more upscale the neighborhood, the less welcome those pesky leaves are. Unfortunately, well-off neighborhoods have plenty of leaves. Not only do folks in suburbia love trees, they love deciduous trees even if such trees are somewhat misplaced as is the case in much of California. Rich people, it seems love leaves. As long as those leaves hang on trees.
Come fall though, the nature lovers engage in a myriad of destructive habits to get rid of fallen leaves. Many prefer the highly polluting and noisy leaf-blowers, a "high-tech" solution to a non problem. Honestly raking leaves give many people some much needed exercise. But leaving the leaves where they are would be best of all.
Much of suburbia is too lazy and too obese to rake or even to handle something as bulky as a leaf-blower. So in come hundreds of immigrants driving old polluting trucks that are overloaded with junk, to blow away and scoop up those leaves. Will they take the leaves? Of course not, that is what the garbage company does. Another truck to clear the air.
Another method that is often used, especially on patios and driveways is to spray gallons of water. Yesterday we had a horrible storm that dumped more water on San Francisco in a 24hr period than any other storm in the last 47 years. Yet everyone let the water run off, overflow the drains, and flood the streets. And today many were happily spraying the debris and leaves off their driveways using fresh clean water from the tap. And I bet they thought nothing of it. They probably thought they were doing the planet a favor. Cleanliness above all else my friends!
After the leaves have been blown or sprayed onto a heap, they are quickly deposited in those big yard waste bins that Waste Management is so eager to provide. Then they will be hauled out with big polluting trucks driving through the neighborhoods. A third collection cycle with its own truck just to suit our needs. Garden debris makes up almost half of the garbage collected in the US. That is why your garden bin is the largest one you got.
I doubt many people realize that they have just hauled away (or let others haul away) valuable biomass; biomass that when left on the ground will form quality topsoil and replenish the lost nutrients. In any case, it is not the American way to re-use things. We need to get rid of what we have and buy new stuff. So to finish the cycle, our suburban homeowners will now go to the store and purchase petroleum-based fertilizers for their lawns. Fertilizer to provide nitrogen and other ingredients the plants need to grow new leaves. But when those leaves get too long (as in grass), or fall off (as in trees) they get cut and carted away. There goes the fertilizer. At least the part that did not run off and pollute the waterways. Because like all good citizens we dump plenty of fertilizer to grow our environmentally destructive lawns.
Instead of letting the soil reabsorb these nutrients, we blow them around, put them on big trucks and ship them away. Then we go out and buy new fertilizer. Does that make sense to you?
Come fall though, the nature lovers engage in a myriad of destructive habits to get rid of fallen leaves. Many prefer the highly polluting and noisy leaf-blowers, a "high-tech" solution to a non problem. Honestly raking leaves give many people some much needed exercise. But leaving the leaves where they are would be best of all.
Much of suburbia is too lazy and too obese to rake or even to handle something as bulky as a leaf-blower. So in come hundreds of immigrants driving old polluting trucks that are overloaded with junk, to blow away and scoop up those leaves. Will they take the leaves? Of course not, that is what the garbage company does. Another truck to clear the air.
Another method that is often used, especially on patios and driveways is to spray gallons of water. Yesterday we had a horrible storm that dumped more water on San Francisco in a 24hr period than any other storm in the last 47 years. Yet everyone let the water run off, overflow the drains, and flood the streets. And today many were happily spraying the debris and leaves off their driveways using fresh clean water from the tap. And I bet they thought nothing of it. They probably thought they were doing the planet a favor. Cleanliness above all else my friends!
After the leaves have been blown or sprayed onto a heap, they are quickly deposited in those big yard waste bins that Waste Management is so eager to provide. Then they will be hauled out with big polluting trucks driving through the neighborhoods. A third collection cycle with its own truck just to suit our needs. Garden debris makes up almost half of the garbage collected in the US. That is why your garden bin is the largest one you got.
I doubt many people realize that they have just hauled away (or let others haul away) valuable biomass; biomass that when left on the ground will form quality topsoil and replenish the lost nutrients. In any case, it is not the American way to re-use things. We need to get rid of what we have and buy new stuff. So to finish the cycle, our suburban homeowners will now go to the store and purchase petroleum-based fertilizers for their lawns. Fertilizer to provide nitrogen and other ingredients the plants need to grow new leaves. But when those leaves get too long (as in grass), or fall off (as in trees) they get cut and carted away. There goes the fertilizer. At least the part that did not run off and pollute the waterways. Because like all good citizens we dump plenty of fertilizer to grow our environmentally destructive lawns.
Instead of letting the soil reabsorb these nutrients, we blow them around, put them on big trucks and ship them away. Then we go out and buy new fertilizer. Does that make sense to you?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
voyeurism
Both Britain and the US are very sexually uptight. While TV overflows with images of carnage and violence, even a hint of wardrobe malfunction evokes a storm of protest, government intervention and high fines. A friend of mine once said, "it's OK to shoot hundreds of people, but god forbid one is naked. That would be horrible!"
In the US it is perfectly acceptable for kids to watch people being butchered or blown to pieces, but revealing a breast is believed to corrupt them in unacceptable ways. Although superbowl games have tons of commercials with violence, Janet's wardrobe malfunction provoked an outcry from concerned citizens warning that "young kids watch these games."
Britain and the US are amongst the most voyeuristic countries. Telescope sales are very high in the US, but most buyers are not amateur astronomers. Most live in cities where stargazing is not an option given the high levels of light pollution. Both countries are also in love with so-called reality TV and internet streaming video that documents every move subjects take. People simply can't get enough of watching what others are doing. Especially when spiced up with a bit of conflict, strife, or mishap. A bit of hyper-realism that is all too familiar for the producers of such shows. They make sure the well watched subjects are sufficiently stressed to make the show appetizing. Esp. since it is forbidden to show what everyone really wants to see: a bit of flesh.
The UK has more "security" cameras than any other country in the world. The average British citizen, going about their everyday business in the city, gets captured more than 5 times a day by public security cameras. The US is rapidly following suit. Cities everywhere are installing cameras, listening devices and other spy equipment. The rationale is always the same: to improve security. It is a good excuse. Research in cities like San Francisco has shown that street cameras do little to deter crime, and given how understaffed the police departments are, do next to nothing to lead to convictions. It is much better to have a few police officers walk the neighborhood. But that too is not allowed in a country where cars are king. Driving through is so much more high tech and so much easier, both for the police and for the criminals.
What happens with all those cameras? A few studies have shown what we all suspect: the images either go unwatched or officers use cameras to spy on attractive sexy young people, especially women. Such study results are always vehemently challenged by authorities. Just like in the infamous Abu Graib case, these are "isolated incidents" and the "perpetrators will face swift justice." Do you really believe this nonsense?
Hold on, because today is a great day for high tech voyeurs. The BBC reports that Manchester Airport just installed a new generation of "naked" scanners. These machines will speed up security checks by quickly revealing concealed weapons or explosives. They will also expose you to "safe" levels of radiation. All of that to clearly show breast enlargements, body (read nipple) piercings, and a clear black and white outline of people's genitals. But wait a minute. It is all for a good cause.
Besides the airport spokeperson was quick to point out that these images are "not erotic or pornographic." Right!
I strongly suspect some people will take a bit longer to scan and some may even be required to submit to a second pass. You can probably guess why. We need to make sure these dangerous individuals with their enlarged breasts are not hiding explosives on their bodies.
One can never be too sure and when it comes to safety. I am sure we all understand what is at stake here.
In the US it is perfectly acceptable for kids to watch people being butchered or blown to pieces, but revealing a breast is believed to corrupt them in unacceptable ways. Although superbowl games have tons of commercials with violence, Janet's wardrobe malfunction provoked an outcry from concerned citizens warning that "young kids watch these games."
Britain and the US are amongst the most voyeuristic countries. Telescope sales are very high in the US, but most buyers are not amateur astronomers. Most live in cities where stargazing is not an option given the high levels of light pollution. Both countries are also in love with so-called reality TV and internet streaming video that documents every move subjects take. People simply can't get enough of watching what others are doing. Especially when spiced up with a bit of conflict, strife, or mishap. A bit of hyper-realism that is all too familiar for the producers of such shows. They make sure the well watched subjects are sufficiently stressed to make the show appetizing. Esp. since it is forbidden to show what everyone really wants to see: a bit of flesh.
The UK has more "security" cameras than any other country in the world. The average British citizen, going about their everyday business in the city, gets captured more than 5 times a day by public security cameras. The US is rapidly following suit. Cities everywhere are installing cameras, listening devices and other spy equipment. The rationale is always the same: to improve security. It is a good excuse. Research in cities like San Francisco has shown that street cameras do little to deter crime, and given how understaffed the police departments are, do next to nothing to lead to convictions. It is much better to have a few police officers walk the neighborhood. But that too is not allowed in a country where cars are king. Driving through is so much more high tech and so much easier, both for the police and for the criminals.
What happens with all those cameras? A few studies have shown what we all suspect: the images either go unwatched or officers use cameras to spy on attractive sexy young people, especially women. Such study results are always vehemently challenged by authorities. Just like in the infamous Abu Graib case, these are "isolated incidents" and the "perpetrators will face swift justice." Do you really believe this nonsense?
Hold on, because today is a great day for high tech voyeurs. The BBC reports that Manchester Airport just installed a new generation of "naked" scanners. These machines will speed up security checks by quickly revealing concealed weapons or explosives. They will also expose you to "safe" levels of radiation. All of that to clearly show breast enlargements, body (read nipple) piercings, and a clear black and white outline of people's genitals. But wait a minute. It is all for a good cause.
Besides the airport spokeperson was quick to point out that these images are "not erotic or pornographic." Right!
I strongly suspect some people will take a bit longer to scan and some may even be required to submit to a second pass. You can probably guess why. We need to make sure these dangerous individuals with their enlarged breasts are not hiding explosives on their bodies.
One can never be too sure and when it comes to safety. I am sure we all understand what is at stake here.
Monday, October 12, 2009
food shortage
The FAO thinks food production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years. It predicts that unless more land is used for food production, 370 million people will face famine by 2050. 370 million seems like a large number until you hear that the world population is expected to grow by 2.3 billion by then. Maybe we should hit the brakes somewhere? What if we only allowed a growth of 2 billion? That would go a long way to solve the problem it seems.
The FAO, like many other organizations and businesses does not think that way. To them the growth is a given if not a must. To businesses and politicians it always is. How can you grow a business if the population declines or stays the same? Ergo, come what may, we have to find a way to solve this problem.
The FAO thinks we need to increase agricultural investment in developing countries by 50% or $83 billion annually to avoid disaster. I am not sure if the FAO took into account the effects of declining fish stocks, scarcity of land and water, and the effects of increased levels of CO2 (with or without global warming) in the atmosphere. Research has shown that many crops, and especially those that Africans and Asians depend on for staples, dramatically reduce their yields when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. So even if the world does not warm, rising CO2 concentrations alone will spell disaster.
However, rest assured that the climate is changing. And climate change is predicted to causes losses of up to 30% in Africa and slightly over 20% in Asia. These are also the areas of the most intense population growth. Not surprisingly these are also the areas with the most young adults. And young adults without jobs and without food tend to get very antsy if not outright belligerent.
Something's got to give here, and it isn't going to look pretty.
The FAO, like many other organizations and businesses does not think that way. To them the growth is a given if not a must. To businesses and politicians it always is. How can you grow a business if the population declines or stays the same? Ergo, come what may, we have to find a way to solve this problem.
The FAO thinks we need to increase agricultural investment in developing countries by 50% or $83 billion annually to avoid disaster. I am not sure if the FAO took into account the effects of declining fish stocks, scarcity of land and water, and the effects of increased levels of CO2 (with or without global warming) in the atmosphere. Research has shown that many crops, and especially those that Africans and Asians depend on for staples, dramatically reduce their yields when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. So even if the world does not warm, rising CO2 concentrations alone will spell disaster.
However, rest assured that the climate is changing. And climate change is predicted to causes losses of up to 30% in Africa and slightly over 20% in Asia. These are also the areas of the most intense population growth. Not surprisingly these are also the areas with the most young adults. And young adults without jobs and without food tend to get very antsy if not outright belligerent.
Something's got to give here, and it isn't going to look pretty.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
health care issues
Today we read in the NY Times, "Mammologists wanted" that delayed diagnosis of breast cancer is the most common and second most costly claim against American doctors. And therein lies a big problem. First of all, I disagree with the consensus that early diagnosis improves survival in breast cancer (or almost any cancer for that matter). Although it sounds plausible enough, this idea is based on a faulty hypothesis about the way cancer develops, spreads and kills. It is also caused by warped statistics and the fact that we do not know the natural history of malignant looking lesions.
So here is the first issue. American doctors, eager to help patients, and esp. militant patients as one finds in breast cancer, have popularized the notion that early detection is key. That it saves lives. Several agencies and scientific bodies have lent credibility to this nonsense and it is now generally accepted that early detection is necessary.
The second issue is even more daunting. And once again it rests on a faulty assumption. And that assumption is that cancer grows locally until it hits a certain size, at which point it will start spreading. But many cancers do not evolve that way. In many cases, finding the early lesion is not trivial. But it is rather easy to go back (hindsight is 20/20 as they say) and "find" the earlier lesion that -now by definition- someone must have "overlooked." I.e. a vague shadow may not be identifiable when you look but when you come back months later and know it is there, well that is a different story. Now that you know the right answer, interpretation is easy.
Can you see where this is going? We treat too many people who then survive, but would have survived anyways. These people add to the statistics and make it more plausible that we should think early detection is key. Now lots of women whose cancers are found "late" start complaining that their lesions were overlooked and go see "legal help." Enter the lawyers, another highly paid profession that has no business in medicine or healthcare. Someone has to pay these lawyers, and the exorbitant fees they charge and the even more ridiculous and exorbitant "settlements" they get.
Once the lawyers are in, the docs start practicing more "defensive medicine," doing even more tests and more procedures so as to make sure nobody can come after them later. Before you know it the whole system is dangerously and expensively out of whack. Ironically enough nobody benefits from this, certainly not the patients. Many more of them suffer complications, while others are told they have "cancer" and need expensive treatment and lots of anxiety for lesions that would regress naturally if left alone. These people not only suffer tremendous mental anguish, they also undergo needless chemo -and some die or get very ill- and they no longer qualify for most healthcare after that. Not to mention all the extra economic hardship they suffer.
And who pays for all this? Your healthcare system. Your premiums.
You pay for unnecessary treatment, for longer than necessary treatment, for high malpractice insurance fees, for experts and more experts to read and re-read xrays, etc. etc.
And what does it buy you? Has survival improved? Except for a few cases, it hasn't. If you include the iatrogenic morbidity the end result is probably zero. That is the long and short of it.
So here is the first issue. American doctors, eager to help patients, and esp. militant patients as one finds in breast cancer, have popularized the notion that early detection is key. That it saves lives. Several agencies and scientific bodies have lent credibility to this nonsense and it is now generally accepted that early detection is necessary.
The second issue is even more daunting. And once again it rests on a faulty assumption. And that assumption is that cancer grows locally until it hits a certain size, at which point it will start spreading. But many cancers do not evolve that way. In many cases, finding the early lesion is not trivial. But it is rather easy to go back (hindsight is 20/20 as they say) and "find" the earlier lesion that -now by definition- someone must have "overlooked." I.e. a vague shadow may not be identifiable when you look but when you come back months later and know it is there, well that is a different story. Now that you know the right answer, interpretation is easy.
Can you see where this is going? We treat too many people who then survive, but would have survived anyways. These people add to the statistics and make it more plausible that we should think early detection is key. Now lots of women whose cancers are found "late" start complaining that their lesions were overlooked and go see "legal help." Enter the lawyers, another highly paid profession that has no business in medicine or healthcare. Someone has to pay these lawyers, and the exorbitant fees they charge and the even more ridiculous and exorbitant "settlements" they get.
Once the lawyers are in, the docs start practicing more "defensive medicine," doing even more tests and more procedures so as to make sure nobody can come after them later. Before you know it the whole system is dangerously and expensively out of whack. Ironically enough nobody benefits from this, certainly not the patients. Many more of them suffer complications, while others are told they have "cancer" and need expensive treatment and lots of anxiety for lesions that would regress naturally if left alone. These people not only suffer tremendous mental anguish, they also undergo needless chemo -and some die or get very ill- and they no longer qualify for most healthcare after that. Not to mention all the extra economic hardship they suffer.
And who pays for all this? Your healthcare system. Your premiums.
You pay for unnecessary treatment, for longer than necessary treatment, for high malpractice insurance fees, for experts and more experts to read and re-read xrays, etc. etc.
And what does it buy you? Has survival improved? Except for a few cases, it hasn't. If you include the iatrogenic morbidity the end result is probably zero. That is the long and short of it.
Monday, October 5, 2009
ronnie
As every schoolchild in America knows, Ronald Reagan defeated communism. His innovative policies also caused the current financial crisis but that is another matter. Let's stay positive for now and focus on the good parts of this story. Ronnie is after all one of our most beloved Presidents and he is the one President all Republicans aspire to equal-surely none would dream to surpass him as that is impossible. No doubt many Republican faithful lie awake at night wondering what has happened to their country and hoping for a second coming of their Messiah. Ronnie is as enduring a hero of capitalism as his famous namesake Ronald McDonald. Both stand for everything that is right in this country.
It is hard to sack nice people, no matter how badly they mess up. That is the advice I was once given by a senior executive when faced with having to let go of a person who was universally loved but incompetent. Nice guys just smile at you and make you forget everything else. And that is the problem when dealing with Ronnie. Who could forget his infectious grandfatherly smile? Not even the Berkeley students of the sixties who faced a much more grimacing governor. What better icon to have than a smiling superhero who defeated the most evil of economic systems and showed once and for all that communism is an abject failure.
Unfortunately, Ronnie is long dead and buried but communism is alive and well. The People's Republic of China just celebrated its 60th anniversary on October 1. And China is not just any communism. China's brand is seen by many as the quintessential and purest form of communism. The vile economic system that leads to poverty and despair. But we better stop here lest we upset our Chinese friends who now hold so much of our debt. Growing at double digit rates, theirs is an economy that keeps many in the West awake and drooling. China of all places appears to be the only big nation on the planet to have weathered the current economic downturn. A recession so big it evoked memories of the Great Depression. But weathering is putting it mildly. The Chinese economy is still growing.
So it is perhaps appropriate to revisit an old cliche:
Ronnie: Communism is dead
Communism: Ronnie is dead.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
green navy
The Navy is now running ads touting how green it is. Well, there you have it, if the Navy can do it so can you. And I mean that very literally. Because unless you are a multi-national corporation with obvious disregard for the environment -an oil company for example- chances are you already are a few orders of magnitude greener than the Navy. So why not tell everyone about it?
I am sure many will take this message to heart and sign up for the Navy so they can help the environment. People signing up for the military tend to have a weak spot for protecting our natural resources. But they also contribute in other ways.
The Navy kills people, which does help with the overpopulation issues, and hence does contribute to less pollution. Unfortunately, they tend to do so in a very wasteful manner. They also preferentially kill people from third world countries so sadly the net balance is not in their favor. People in third world countries just don't have the means to cause much pollution over their lifetimes. And last but not least, even though the Navy has an impressive kill record, the numbers just don't add up. There are just too many people on the planet for them to have an impact that matters. But perhaps the new sonar will help kill enough wales to make up for it?
It appears the Navy is also trying to support proponents of nuclear energy. Their angel of good tidings is a woman nuclear engineer. That is a sweet touch. The Navy of course has a lot riding -or shall we say sailing- on nuclear energy. Its aircraft carriers, warships and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors. And the Navy is also a proud tester of nuclear weapons. Those of you not born yesterday, probably heard of Bikini Atoll, a true testament to environmental stewardship.
There, under the banner of operation Crossroads, the Navy managed to demonstrate its green thumb in way that was hard to beat. Even if you never heard of it, chances are you saw a picture of the famous Baker shot. It was a test like no other. Here is one radioactive fish, courtesy of Baker, that the Navy may want to use to light up their future green commercials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
