Sunday, January 27, 2013

The World's Big Problems

Last week in class I found myself eavesdropping on a conversation taking place two desks over. The subject was political, meaning that it immediately caught my interest, and between an older student -- i.e., a real adult -- and someone about my age. Both of them had assumed a rather serious demeanor, speaking with a rat-a-tat precision and earnestness that conveyed the gravity of the weighty matters they were discussing.

While the conversation reached its apogee the students' began to speak even faster, disgorging their thoughts as though they would never be offered a chance to speak again. As if right on queue, the older student jabbed the air with his index finger, declaring that all of the world's ills pale in comparison to the "problem" of unfettered population growth in a world of increasing scarcity. The others nodded gravely, immediately affirming the seriousness of this gloomy prognostication.

I recall this conversation because, to me at least, it exhibits several problems common to contemporary political discourse. All of the students involved are bright and have a good noggin on their shoulders, yet all of them fell prey to a tendency that pervades the op-ed pages, radio broadcasts, and neglected corners of deservedly-maligned textbooks alike -- the larger-than-life doom and gloom forecast.

Hot-button issues like global warming, gun control, and population growth, to name a few, are all too often presented in larger-than-life language that infuses the problems with a sense of inevitably while leaving the reader with a burdensome feeling of  resignation. Not only are such portrayals unhelpful but, more often than not, they are just plain silly. Evoking the specter of human society's imminent collapse because of any of these issues is, one, misleading since the issue is normally not one problem but symptomatic of a series of smaller related problems; and, two, dangerous because it paints the issue as ineluctable, implying that it impossible to solve and consequently there is no point in trying.

To be sure, global warming, gun control, and world population are important or, more appropriately, indicative of important issues, but none are inevitable or foregone conclusions.

Saying that a growing world population will eventually trigger Malthusian chaos of global proportions is like saying that the sky is going to fall. Both invoke a problem of unfathomable scale in a way that does not encourage the formation of intelligent solutions but, rather, makes the problem appear insoluble.

It is not as if the world is one big popcorn-maker, every corner of the globe being uniformly swamped by puffy corn kernels. That is to say, the world is not one template with population issues experienced uniformly across its face. What encourages rapid population growth in one area of the world is not necessarily the same set of factors that encourages growth in another. And, indeed, there are many areas of the world whose birthrates are rapidly declining or fairly constant. Perhaps more importantly, the effects of unfettered population growth and the stress it exerts on an area's resources, or lack thereof, varies just as much from place to place.

Consequently, the "problem" of population growth is a dubious one, seeing as it lumps matters of scarcity, environmental degradation, and other population-based issues into one nightmarish basket. What it omits, however, is also glaring, namely the specific initiatives that are occurring at regional levels -- or that could be pursued -- to address what are essentially local issues which can only be solved within their specific contexts.

What is intriguing, and most certainly disconcerting, is that portraying these "problems" in larger-than-life terms can serve a certain political purpose. By framing issues under the larger-than-life monikers of global warming or gun control those who benefit from the problems that underlie these issues continue to profit from their persistence, steering attention away from particular problems that lie beneath the surface by pointing at the decoy propped-up on top.

The issue of global warming is a fairly obvious case: oil barons and car manufacturers claim that the problem either does not exist or is a complex amalgam of mercurial forces beyond our control. Placing the blame on undefined forces -- when such "interests" acknowledge there is a problem at all -- misdirects public attention from the fact that global warming is the result of simple problems that can easily, and must be, addressed at the local level. More efficient public transportation, less energy wastage, and the pursuit of cleaner technologies are all practical measures that can be pursued immediately by willing people and local governments. In fact, if the government were to do its job and begin to seriously undertake these endeavors a lot of jobs would be created, boosting that much desired "demand" needed for hoisting the economy out of its present economic doldrums.

Gun control is a much less discernible case of political maneuvering, probably because it functions as such on multiples levels. 

After Newtown, the media has covered the topic with indefatigable zeal but, in doing so, has to some extent formalized the parameters within which the topic is debated. Attention has been drawn to the power of the NRA and even, at times, the role of that antediluvian giant known as the military-industrial complex, which has swallowed most of the country's money over the past century for the purpose of manufacturing death (and making a few people very rich).

Though these facets are apposite and important, several related facets of the gun control issue have not been addressed with proportional weight, if at all.

Whether self-modeled disciples of the Second Amendment and its misinterpretation -- aka, those who believe it affords them the right to hoard weapons for self-defense -- believe it or not, they are being had. For, above all, they are vociferously defending their own exploitation. Simply put, guns are a powerful means of enabling crony capitalism to thrive. By defending the "right" of Americans to arm themselves like pirates, elites garner the support of credulous Americans who are concurrently suffering from their austerity measures, dying in their wars, and underwriting their lavish lifestyles.

The economically beleaguered and socially marginalized citizen is made to believe that in spite of their deprivation they are doing just fine -- at least they have the right to protect themselves don't they? Thus the very same people who are responsible for the wars and 2008 collapse are sanitized, gussied up, and self-modeled as the guarantors of "inalienable" rights for the average American. The right to affordable healthcare, education, and work is unAmerican (it's "socialism") we are told; but these same elites tell us that they will, by golly, be sure to stand up for our "right to bear arms". What results is unqualified support for the very elites who have done to most to dis-empower them.

The gun is a convenient distraction, a soothing albeit lethal device that allows the average citizen to feel as if his or her life is in their own hands. What they do not realize is that they have not been given the means to enrich their lives spiritually, intellectually, or materially but, rather, have simply been allowed a means to end it. How ironic, the powerful elites who most insistently advocate gutting the programs most needed by the average person, like Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, are portrayed as the mantleholders of their best interests by allowing them an instrument that cannot build but only destroy. Of course, even this small concession is of no concern for these elites since the state still monopolizes the most destructive means of violence, and doubtless much of the arms sales proceeds shall wind their way into at least some of their pockets.

There are a few more straightforward problems with the argumentation used by the Gun Lobby in opposition to gun control measures. One is the patently idiotic rebuttal that regulating guns would not have stopped Newtown and cannot stop all episodes of gun violence. This is an excellent example to how interest groups paint the "problem" in larger-than-life terms, subsuming the relevant details in a swath of all-encompassing strokes. The answer to this intellectual drip is, one, we cannot tell if the legislation would have made a difference because it did not exist at that time; and, second, even if it did not stop these incidents the reason for such legislation is to prevent those incidents that are within our ability to do so.

School shootings are only a small part of gun violence in the U.S. Limiting access to guns may not have prevented Newtown, as the Gun Lobby so crassly thunders, but it undoubtedly would prevent future incidents involving children accessing their parents' guns, accidental shootings by gun-owners, and a litany of other less sensational gun-related tragedies that number in the 1000s each year, but which fail to make the headlines.

It is ironic and revealing that many of those who tout the Gun Lobby line, or that more regulations cannot solve the problem effectively because it is so large, in the same breath suggest that, instead, the government should stop gun violence by taking on the two unfathomably more open-ended issues of -- and no, I am not joking -- mental health in America and at the upbringing of at-risk youth! Not only are these issues vastly more complicated and, consequently, difficult to address but they would necessarily entail vastly more invasive measures. These suggestions seem bizarre when one remembers that those who are advocating them are self-same gun enthusiasts who rail about the alleged evils of "big government." (Do not tell me that I have to fill out some paperwork before I purchase my gun, but feel free to monitor how I raise my children, sheesh!)

The world is a complicated place with a lot of problems. It is misleading and counterproductive, however, to allow one's self to be pushed into a place of silent resignation by larger-than-life specters. These problems are generally misleading since they are composed of myriad convergent issues that, in truth, are not only soluble but would greatly benefit from your help. Entrenched interest groups, lobbyists, and Washington power-brokers have much to gain if we continue to buy their mumbo-jumbo, particularly their most effectively marketed commodity: fear. These observations lead us to the transcendent truth that what we really have to fear is apathy, and "fear itself" -- to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Think for yourself, act upon your convictions and, above all, be willing to do something. For daring to live with purpose is not only a profound act, but inherently subversive.














1 comment:

  1. Love this article. Easy to read and understand and you made good points that we need to be reminded of often. Especially liked: "What is intriguing, and most certainly disconcerting, is that portraying these "problems" in larger-than-life terms can serve a certain political purpose. By framing issues under the larger-than-life monikers of global warming or gun control those who benefit from the problems that underlie these issues continue to profit from their persistence, steering attention away from particular problems that lie beneath the surface by pointing at the decoy propped-up on top." And, of course, you ended with a punch. I loved your closing statement.

    ReplyDelete