JUST A FEW SIMPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE POLITICIANS
In the din of canned political phrases and stump speeches and angry ads, I keep
waiting for some small part of the democratic discourse to address the issues I
care about. I keep waiting for some politician to give even slightly
honest-sounding answers to the questions I most want to ask.
Questions such as:
Do you really believe that any president can make the economy better or worse?
Or do presidents simply luck into serving when the economy is going up or down?
If families can get addicted to public welfare, why can't corporations? Why do
we hear so many fulminations against family welfare and so few against
corporate welfare?
Russia in the grip of uncontrolled capitalism is at least as unpredictable and
dangerous as Russia in the grip of communism. Given our obsession with the old
Russia, why are we doing so little about the new one?
September 1998 was the warmest September on record both in the United States
and in the world. Montana had an average September temperature 7.4 degrees F.
above normal; Oklahoma's was 7.9 degrees above normal. The first nine months
of 1998 have each in succession been the warmest ever recorded. Why are we not
even talking about this?
If Europe and Japan can put taxes of one, two, three, or four dollars per
gallon on gasoline and not crumble economically, not lose their democracies,
not become uncompetitive, why can't we?
Why do you claim to have ended the government deficit when you know you're just
doing tricks on the books with the Social Security surplus, which you are
raiding for current expenses? Who is going to pay off those IOUs in the Social
Security Trust Fund when the baby boomers retire?
Why, when you yell about the horrors of taxes, do you never mention payroll
taxes? Eighty percent of Americans -- the bottom 80 percent in income -- pay
far more in payroll tax than in income tax -- and the payroll tax over the past
20 years has gone steadily up. Why do you talk only about capital gains and
income taxes, paid mainly by the wealthy? When you complain about capital
gains being "taxed twice," has it ever occurred to you that wages are also
taxed twice (by the income and payroll tax)?
If big government running our lives is a problem, why aren't big corporations
running our lives a problem?
Why is it that when I was a kid and average income in this country was
one-fourth of what it is now, just about everyone could afford full health
insurance, but now it's a struggle for the average family to pay for basic
health care?
Why can't we even consider learning from the public health care systems that
work smoothly and inexpensively (relative to ours, anyway) in Canada and all
over Europe?
Why do we always talk about companies making jobs for workers, but not workers
making profits for companies?
How is it that "globalization," which allows companies to move plants to places
where people will work for one-tenth or one-hundredth the wage of the average
American worker, can ever benefit the average American worker?
As cars, appliances, airplanes and computers are increasingly made by workers
who earn $3 or $10 a day, who is going to buy all the cars, appliances,
airplane flights and computers?
Why do sneakers made by workers who earn $3 or $10 a day still cost $100 a
pair?
Do you really think "globalization" is inevitable? Why? Do you want it to be?
What is the difference between a criminal who puts poison in someone's coffee
and an industrial manager who puts poison in the air people breathe or the
water they drink?
Why is it that we wouldn't consider for a moment paying someone not to rob a
bank, but we don't consider it absurd to pay someone not to pollute or not to
destroy a priceless natural resource?
When you talk about "character," why do you seem to mean only sexual conduct?
Isn't it a character issue to hand special favors to private interests at
public expense? Or to have no compassion for the poor? Or to repeat publicly
over and over claims that you know or suspect to be lies or evasions or
exaggerations?
If the answer to some or most of the questions above is "because someone pays
public officials a large amount of money to make it that way," does that bother
you? Do you truly, in the depths of the night, want to belong to a society
that works like that?
Why do most communications from politicians, especially campaign ads, treat the
public as if it were stupid and ignorant. Do you really think the public is
like that? Have you ever wondered what would happen if you spoke the truth as
you see it? If campaign ads were substantive? If you didn't have to pander to
rich contributors to stay in power? Wouldn't you like to belong to a society
that works like that?
If you're a leader, why don't you lead in that direction?
(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)
|
Elozetes a GAIA SAJTOSZEMLEBOL (http://www.foek.hu/gaia.)
(A julius 22-i Kornyeszben kozolt Donella cikk utan hianyerzetem volt:
csak az egyes orszagok kulonbozo idopontokban volt nepessegszamat
adta meg. Itt most lenyegesen melyebb elemzest ad.) KORNYESZ 573,
1998. oktober 9. Donella Meadows: 200 years since Malthus and we still
haven't proved him wrong (200 evvel Malthus utan meg nem bizonyitottuk
be, hogy nem volt igaza) Iden van 200 eve, hogy megjelent egy kis
tanulmany, amikrol az emberek meg ma is vitatkoznak. 1798-ban Thomas
Robert Mathus tiszteletes hatarozottan allitotta, hogy az emberi
nepesseg el fog jutni egy pontra, amelyen elszegenyedik es ehezni fog.
Mind a marxistak, mind a kapitalistak eroteljesen tamadjak ezt a
gondolatot. A marxistak azt hiszik, hogy egy igazsagosan szervezett
gazdasagban az emberek szama nem lehet tul nagy. A kapitalistak azert
gunyoljak Malthust, mert nem latta elore a haladast, amely lehetove
teszi, hogy 6-szor annyi embert taplaljunk, mint 1798-ban.
Garrett Hardin irta: Malthust, ezt a hatalmas kozgazdaszt a 200 ev
utan ismet eltemetik.
Biztosra vehetjuk, hogy akit mar 200-szor eltemettek, az nem halhat
meg teljesen." A Worldwatch Intezet uj tanulmanya tele van tenyekkel,
amelyek azt mondjak, hogy Malthus nem halott, nem hibas, de igaza
sincs. Az emberi faj szaporodasi mintazata megvaltozik. Nehany
evtizeden belul valoszinuleg vegleg nyugodni engedhetjuk az oreg
Malthust. Rajtunk mulik, hogy igaza lesz, vagy teved. A legmeglepobb
vilagmeretu valtozas, hogy a nepesseg novekedese lassul. A novekedesi
arany 1964-ben volt a legnagyobb: 2,2%. 1998-ban 1,4%. Ez meglepo
csokkenes. Indiaban az egy asszonyra eso gyerekszam 5,3-rol 3,6-ra
csokkent. Kinaban az asszonyok szulesi kozeperteke 1,8, kevesebb, mint
az Egyesult Allamokban. 32 orszagban, pl. Japanban, Franciaorszagban,
Nagy Britanniaban es Spanyolorszagban a novekedes nulla.
Nemetorszagban, Olaszorszagban, Oroszorszagban, Magyarorszagon es
Ukrajnaban a lakossag szama csokken. Tovabbi 39 orszagban, - ezek
kozott van Kina es az EA - a csaladokban atlagosan kettonel kevesebb a
gyerekek szama, de ez a szam nehany evtizeden belul novekedni fog,
mert sok fiatal most eri majd el a gyereknemzesi korat. A kevesse vagy
egyaltalan nem novekvo lakossagu orszagokban 2 milliard ember el, a
vilag nepessegenek 1/3 resze. Ezek vagy gazdag ipari orszagok, illetve
korabbi vagy jelenleg is kommunista orszagok. Ezeknek altalaban nem
nagyobb gazdagsagra, hanem oktatasra-nevelesre van szukseguk. Az
emberiseg 1/3 resze azt mutatja, hogy Malthusnak nincs igaza. Nem
latta elore a termelekeny muszaki eljarasokat, a szuletesszabalyozasi
modszereket, oktatasi rendszerunket, a nok foglalkoztatasat es
jogaikat. Azonban az emberiseg masik 2/3 resze kemenyen Malthus igazat
bizonyitja. Ezek a
fejlodo" orszagok, ezekben jon letre a jelenlegi teljes
nepesseg-szaporodas. A szuletesi arany
ezekben is csokken, de csak lassan. Ezekben evente 80 millioval no a
nepesseg, 14 havonta egy uj Mexikonyi lakossag. Az ENSZ szerint a
kovetkezo 50 evben tovabbi 3,3 milliarddal no a Fold lakossaga. A
Worldwatch fuzet ezt elviselhetetlennek iteli. Ramutat, hogy az egy
fore juto hal-fogas 1968 ota nem valtozik es sok nagy halaszterulet
pusztuloban van. A vilagmeretu egy fore juto gabonatermeles 14 eve
csokken, a gazdalkodok ugyan egyre termelekenyebbek, de nem tudnak
lepest tartani a nepesseg novekedesevel. Az ontozeses mezogazdasag is
veszelyben van, mivel a viztartalekokat kimeritik. Ha a nepesseg
tovabb no es a felszin alatti vizek szintje csokken, a Worldwatch
szamitasai szerint 2050-re egy szemelyre negyed annyi friss viz jut,
mint 1950-ben. Egy brit tanulmany ugy becsuli, hogy az erdok
kitermelese 25%-kal van a fenntarthatosagi hatarertek felett. A vilag
egy fore juto olajtermelese 1979-ben tetozott es azota 23%-kal
csokkent. Tobb becsles alapjan arra kell szamitanunk, hogy az
olajtermeles 2010 vagy 2020 korul csokkenni kezd, ahogyan a kutak
elapadnak. Ha tovabbi 3 milliarddal no a lakossag, azoknak is
munkalehetosegre lesz szukseguk, holott mar most a vilag munkaerejenek
1/3 resze, 1 milliard alul-foglalkoztatott. Az ujabb lakosoknak lakas
kell, de kozulunk mar ma is 1,6 milliardnyian nem rendelkeznek
megfelelo lakassal. Iskolakra, tiszta ivovizre, egeszsegugyi
berendezesekre es ellatasra lesz szukseguk. Nem akarunk arra gondolni,
mi tortenik, ha ezeket nem kapjak meg. A Worldwatch-jelentes ramutat
azokra a pontokra, ahol Malthusnak tragikusan igaza volt: minden
vilagmeretu haladas ellenere is novekszik a halalozas. A legfobb ok az
AIDS, de az is elsosorban a nyomor es a rossz egeszsegugyi ellatas
tunete. Ugy becsulik, hogy Zimbabwe 2002-re eleri a zero-novekedest,
mivel a felnott lakossag 1/4 resze HIV-fertozott. Mas afrikai nemzetek
is ebben az iranyban haladnak. Kozulunk 840 millio ember allandoan
ehezik, annyian, ahanyan Malthus koraban a Foldon eltek. Naponta
19.000 ember hal meg az alultaplaltsag miatt, foleg gyerekek. Malthus
mondott valamit, ami akkor igaz volt es azota is igaz: A
letfenntartasrol valo gondoskodas biztositasanak a nehezsege es az
ebbol szarmazo altalanos szukseg nem tavoli dolog, s ez akkor lesz
erezheto, ha a fold mar visszautasitja, hogy tobbet termeljen, azonban
ez mar jelenleg is igy van a bolygo legnagyobb reszen." Meg be tudjuk
bizonyitani, hogy nem volt igaza. Tudjuk, hogy mikent. Reszben mar
cselekedtunk is. ( Beyond Malthus: Sixteen Dimensions of the
Population Problem," by Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner and Brian
Halweil, is available for $5 from Worldwatch Institute, 1776
Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20036-1904, phone 800-555-2028,
www.worldwatch.org.)
Pi.
|
