Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 10.17.05

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E    C A L E N D A R    10.17.05

1. Indian event    10.18 11:30am
2. Energy/health   10.18 12:15pm
3. Rwanda/film     10.18 6pm
4. Transportation  10.18 6:30pm
5. MilMed/torture  10.18 6:30pm
6. Vs anti-gay law 10.18 6:30pm
7. Kelly/Coleman   10.18 7pm
8. MN FOR letters  10.18 7pm
9. Author event    10.18 7pm
10. Luv fem body   10.18 8pm
11. Torture/PBS    10.18 9pm
12. Kathy Kelly    10.18 ? Collegeville MN
13. Refugee        10.18 ?

14. Bryan Appleyard - Waiting for the lights to go out
15. ed              - Faith-basting the young (poem)

--------1 of 15--------

From: Diane J. Peterson <birch7 [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Indian community event 10.18 11:30am

Opportunity to learn more about the Indian community in the metropolitan
area - an event to bring non-Indian people together with Indian people:

Tuesday, October 18
Department of Indian Work's FALL FESTIVAL
StPaul Area Council of Churches
1671 Summit Avenue
StPaul
11:30am-6pm

Department of Indian Work Executive Director and event hostess:  Sheila
WhiteEagle

Please bring a donation of a nonperishable food item for the Department of
Indian Work's Food Shelf.  Onstreet parking.

 Traditional Indian meal of wild rice soup and fry bread served
11:30am-1pm and at 5-6pm.  (Freewill cash donations accepted.)
 Program at 4:00 with traditional Indian dancers
 Door prizes
 Silent auction
 Indian arts and crafts for sale by various vendors
 Raffle for a Pendelton blanket
 Displays and slide show on issues facing the American Indian community

For further information, call the St. Paul Area Council of Churches at
651-646-8805 www.spacc.org

Diane J. Peterson White Bear Lake, Minnesota birch7 [at] comcast.net Founder,
Minnesota Witness for Environmental Justice


--------2 of 15--------

From: Elizabeth Dickinson <eadickinson [at] mindspring.com>
Subject: Energy/health 10.18 12:15pm

A Lunch Series on the Societal Implications of the Life Sciences will
present Prof. Daniel Kammen, PhD (University of California, Berkeley) on
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 from 12:15pm-1:30pm in the Theater at the St.
Paul Student Center.  Prof. Kammen will lecture on "Changing Energy Policy
to Benefit the Environment and Human Health."  Continuing education credit
is offered (see below).  The series is cosponsored by the University of
Minnesota's Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life
Sciences
(<file://www.lifesci.consortium.umn.edu>www.lifesci.consortium.umn.edu)
and Joint Degree Program in Law, Health & the Life Sciences
(<file://www.jointdegree.umn.edu>www.jointdegree.umn.edu).

Abstract: Energy use is the primary driver of local and global
environmental change.  It is also a leading cause of human disease.  Yet
current patterns of energy use are widely seen as extremely difficult to
alter significantly. In this talk Prof. Kammen will examine the basis for
this view of energy "stasis."  He will argue that far from being a
"supertanker" unable to alter course, the energy industry is highly
capable of change.  Indeed, relatively simple policy changes may go a long
way.  The needed catalyst for progress may simply be our interest in
changing the status quo.

Prof. Kammen holds multiple appointments at Berkeley and is the founding
director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL). His
work focuses on the science and policy of clean, renewable energy systems,
energy efficiency, the role of energy in national energy policy,
international climate debates, and the use and impacts of energy sources
and technologies on development, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

The event is free and open to the public. Reservations are strongly
encouraged. Lunches are provided to those who RSVP by October 11, 2005 to
lawvalue [at] umn.edu or 612-625-0055 (please indicate if vegetarian/vegan).
Registration is required if you wish to receive continuing education
credits (CLE or general CEU). Those without reservations are welcome to
attend, but should bring a lunch. St. Paul Student Center parking is
available in the Gortner Ramp on Gortner Avenue, across Buford Avenue from
the Student Center. Maps may be found at
<http://onestop.umn.edu/Maps/index.html>http://onestop.umn.edu/Maps/index.ht
ml.

This lecture is intended for students, faculty, researchers, scientists,
policymakers, and interested members of the community.  Following this
lecture, participants should be able to:
   * Discuss issues raised by social assumptions about the "stasis" of
energy use.
   * Explain how these issues affect researchers, policy makers, and the
community.
The program provides 1 contact hour of general University of
Minnesota continuing education (.1 CEU).  Continuing legal education
credit (CLE) for attorneys will be requested (1 hour).

This lecture is the first lecture in the 2005-06 Lunch Series.  This
year's  Lunch Series focuses on "Energy and the Environment: Science,
Ethics &  Policy."  For more information on upcoming events, visit
<http://www.lifesci.consortium.umn.edu/news_and_events/#events>http://www.li
fesci.consortium.umn.edu/news_and_events/#events.

Thanks to Consortium members Prof. Daniel J. Philippon (Program in
Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Ethics), Prof. Kenneth H. Keller
(Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy), and Dr. Jennifer Kuzma
(Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy) for taking the lead in
planning.

For more information please contact: Sara Zettervall, Program Associate
lawvalue [at] umn.edu 612-625-0055

Sue Lewis University of Minnesota IREE - Initiative for Renewable Energy
and the Environment 1500 Gortner Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 612-624-7266
612-624-6264 (fax) lewis495 [at] umn.edu www.iree.umn.edu


--------3 of 15--------

From: humanrts [at] umn.edu
Subject: Rwanda/film 10.18 6pm

October 18 - Human Rights Film Series: In Rwanda We Say...The Family That
Does Not Speak Dies.  6-9pm

The Human Rights Center is proud to announce the launch of our 2005-2006
Human Rights Film series.  Through screenings and panel discussions, the
Human Rights Center brings experts and community members together to raise
awareness, promote discussion, and take action on issues affecting the
human rights community in Minnesota, the U.S., and the world.

In Rwanda We Say is a documentary on the reconciliation process in Rwanda
after the 1994 genocide.  Filmed in 2004, it relays the story of a man
accused of genocide who is released from prison after several years in
detention.  As he tries to reintegrate into his community, the relatives
of his victims must confront their feelings about his release and the
concept of reconciliation.

Schedule of Events
6:00-6:20 pm:  Reception and Registration
6:20-6:30 pm:  Introduction to Event
6:30-6:45 pm:  A Brief History of Rwanda
6:45-7:00 pm:  Introduction to the Gacaca
7:00-7:55 pm:  Film Screening: In Rwanda We Say...The Family That  Does Not
               Speak Dies
7:55-9:00 pm:  Panel Discussion

Panelists
 Michele Wagner:  Associate Professor of History, University of Minnesota
 Florien Ukizemwabo: Hubert H. Humphrey International Fellow and Executive
Secretary of the Rwandan League for the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights
 Paul Corbit Brown: 2005 Upper Midwest Human Rights Fellow and
Photographer
 Franklin Reed: 2005 Upper Midwest Human Rights Fellow, Staff Attorney at
the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, and Adjunct Faculty at the
University of Minnesota Law School

Program Sponsors: The University of Minnesota Human Rights Center, the
Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, the University of Minnesota
Department of History, the University of Minnesota Center for Holocaust
and Genocide Studies, and the International Leadership Institute Location:
Room 25, Mondale Hall, University of Minnesota Law School, 229 19th Ave
South, Minneapolis, MN 55455


--------4 of 15--------

From: Elizabeth Wielinski <lizski [at] goldengate.net>
Subject: Transportation 10.18 6:30pm

DRAFT MINNEAPOLIS 10-YEAR TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN WORKSHOPS

Tuesday, October 18, 6:30-8:30pm; North Commons Recreation Center, 1801
James Avenue North

Wednesday, October 19, 5-7pm; Butler Square Building, First Floor
Conference Room A and B, 100 North Sixth Street

Wednesday, October 26, 6:30-8:30pm; Keewaydin Recreation Center, 3000 East
53rd Street

The City of Minneapolis is hosting a series of workshops to give the
public an opportunity to share their ideas on how the City can improve its
transportation system.

The workshops will provide an overview of the City's 10-Year
Transportation Action Plan, which is under development, and provide
information on the transportation challenges facing the City.

When completed, the Transportation Action Plan will be a citywide plan
that addresses a full range of transportation options and issues,
including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, automobile and freight. The
10-Year Action Plan also will include additional materials, including a
web-based transportation fact book, a transit and street operations plan
for downtown, and new street design guidelines that reflect the
characteristics of the surroundings. Pre-registration is not required.

Since the workshops will include presentations on transportation
challenges facing the City, followed by structured dialogue, participants
are encouraged to arrive at the designated meeting start time. Upon
request, the City will provide reasonable accommodations to persons with
disabilities or who are in need of a translator. Please submit such
requests or requests for additional information no later than seven days
prior to the meeting to Charleen Zimmer, Project Manager, at (612)
673-3166 or charleen.zimmer [at] ci.minneapolis.mn.us.


--------5 of 15--------

From: patty guerrero <pattypax [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: MilMed/torture 10.18 6:30pm

The subject of the Salon on Tuesday, October 18, is "The Legacy for
Military Medicine of the Human Rights Abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and
Other Prisons Where Detainees are Sent."  Our speaker will be Dr. Steven
Miles, professor of Medicine, Center of Bioethics at University of
Minnesota, and the author of the new book, The Hippocratic Oath and the
Ethics of Medicine. [Not to be confused with Bush's hippocritic oaths -ed]

Salons are held (unless otherwise noted in advance):
Tuesdays, 6:30 to 8:30 pm.
Mad Hatter's Tea House,
943 W 7th, St Paul, MN

Salons are free but donations encouraged for program and treats.
Call 651-227-3228 or 651-227-2511 for information.


--------6 of 15--------

From: David Strand <mncivil [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Vs anti-gay law 10.18 6:30pm

The following is an important excerpt from an Outfront MN email that I
wanted to highlight and bring to your attention.  The possibility of
having an antigay marriage amendment on the ballot is very real and it's
important that we start organizing now to defeat a possible ballot
measure.

OutFront Minnesota Community Meeting
An unveiling of the campaign to stop the constitutional amendment.

Tuesday, October 18, 6:30 - 8:30pm
Sabathani Community Center
310 East 38th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55409

The next 13 months are critical for GLBT equality. This spring's
legislative session marks the third year in a row that Minnesotans face a
constitutional amendment that would ban marriage, civil unions, and all
other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples. OutFront Minnesota
is leading the fight to not only stop the amendment, but to increase the
power, visibility, and sheer number of people actively working for GLBT
equality. By working together we can send the message to our elected
officials and the rest of the country that Minnesota does not
discriminate. GLBT equality is a critical part of the equation for
creating a better society.

On October 18 we will unveil the campaign to stop the constitutional
amendment to the community. Mark your calendar to attend this massive
briefing to be held at Sabathani Community Center. The key to success in
the next 13 months and beyond is your involvement in this campaign. Watch
for more information in the weeks to come.


--------7 of 15--------

From: David A. Greene <greened [at] obbligato.org>
Subject Kelly/Coleman 10.18 7pm

[Neither one progressive. Listen, then protest by writing in Elizabeth
Dickinson on election day - ed]

The St. Paul caucus of ISAIAH is holding a mayoral forum on Oct. 18 at the
Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  The forum starts at 7pm.  Both
Kelly and Coleman have committed to attend. IHM is at 1550 Summit Avenue.


--------8 of 15-------

From: "Don,Rachel Christensen" <chris385 [at] umn.edu>
Subject: MN FOR letters  10.18 7pm

Members and Friends of the MN FOR:
Speak truth to power and practice nonviolent citizenship!  We invite you
to join our monthly letter writing action to elected officials.  This
month we will register our dissent to the continued use of our federal tax
dollars to wage a war in Iraq when there are so many unmet needs, such as
hurricane recovery, health care and housing, here at home.

Tuesday, October 18, 7pm home of Don Christensen, 1953 Sargent Av., St.
Paul For directions or more information contact Don at chris385 [at] umn.edu
651-690-2609


--------9 of 15--------

From: david unowsky <rdu [at] ruminator.com>
Subject: Author event 10.18 7pm

Tuesday, October 18, 7pm at Suburban World Theatre: Jeff Blodgett
discusses Politics the Wellstone Way (Univ. of Minnesota Press)

sponsored by Magers and Quinn booksellers:
info at www.magersandquinn.com Questions- books [at] magersandquinn.com or
call David Unowsky at 612-822-4611

[Blodgett is a DFK hack none too friendly to Greens and progressives -ed]


--------10 of 15-------

From mnnow_prgmcmtee [at] hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 01:42:37 2005
Subject: Luv fem body 10.18 8pm

The Minnesota Chapter of the National Organization of Women (MN NOW) and
Savvy House Entertainment are pleased to announce an event that combines
art and activism: Luv Your Body. This event will feature local women
performers including spoken word artists, poetry readings, a feminist
martial arts demonstration, live music, DJ music and a slideshow of art
pieces, and other performance pieces focusing on the issue of body image
and its many facets. The mission of Luv Your Body is to express
artistically the concept that women, in all sizes, styles and colors, are
strong, beautiful, and powerful.

Tues Oct 18 8pm-1am; performances start at 9pm

Jitters Café, located in the basement of The Times Bar and Café 205 East
Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN (Near St. Anthony Main) "2 for 1" drinks
until 11:00pm No cover - donations accepted 21+

Contact Information: Kristi Shaw info [at] mnnow.org www.mnnow.org 651-222-1605


--------11 of 15--------

From: Richard L. Dechert <ldechert [at] webtv.net>
Subject: Torture/PBS 10.18 9pm

PBS FRONTLINE: the torture question - tpt-2, 10.18.05, 9-10:30pm

This 90-minute special was to be the first program in Frontline's
2005-2006 season, but was rescheduled for next Tuesday. And because of its
length, it won't repeat Wednesday on tpt-17, but will repeat overnight on
tpt-2 at 3-4:30am, and will be in streaming video and full transcript with
additional information at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/.


--------12 of 15--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Kathy Kelly 10.18 ? Collegeville MN

Tuesday, 10/18, Kathy Kelly (Voices in the Wilderness) speaks to two classes
at St. Benedict/St. Johns in Collegeville.  FFI: Sr. Merle Nolde,
MNolde [at] CSBSJU.edu or 320-363-7189, plus 8 pm presentation "Witness to War,
Witness to Peace" at Alumnae Hall, College of St. Benedict.


--------13 of 15--------

From: humanrts [at] umn.edu
Subject: Refugee 10.18 ?

October 18 - American Refugee Committee Fall Dinner and Silent Auction.

Special Guest, Jane Olson, has devoted her life to international peace and
justice. She chairs both the Board of Trustees of Human Rights Watch and
the Board of Directors for the Landmine Survivors Network. As a human
rights and refugee advocate, she has traveled extensively throughout her
career. On October 18, Ms. Olson will share insights from the field
including her recent travels to Jordan, Indonesia, and Rwanda.

Sponsorships are welcomed and greatly appreciated. For more information,
please call Susan Fink at (612) 872-7060. Funds raised at the Fall Dinner
and Silent Auction support ARC's programs around the world.

Nicollet Island Pavilion, 40 Power Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota


--------14 of 15--------

Waiting for the lights to go out
Bryan Appleyard
The Sunday Times October 16, 2005

[Suggested by Gary Hoover]

We've taken the past 200 years of prosperity for granted. Humanity's
progress is stalling, we are facing a new era of decay, and nobody is
clever enough to fix it. Is the future really that black, asks Bryan
Appleyard

The greatest getting-and-spending spree in the history of the world is
about to end. The 200-year boom that gave citizens of the industrial world
levels of wealth, health and longevity beyond anything previously known to
humanity is threatened on every side. Oil is running out; the climate is
changing at a potentially catastrophic rate; wars over scarce resources
are brewing; finally, most shocking of all, we don't seem to be having
enough ideas about how to fix any of these things.

It's been said before, of course: people are always saying the world will
end and it never does. Maybe it won't this time, either. But, frankly,
it's not looking good. Almost daily, new evidence is emerging that
progress can no longer be taken for granted, that a new Dark Age is lying
in wait for ourselves and our children.

To understand how this could happen, it is necessary to grasp just how
extraordinary, how utterly unprecedented are the privileges we in the
developed world enjoy now. Born today, you could expect to live 25 to 30
years longer than your Victorian forebears, up to 45 years longer than
your medieval ancestors and at least 55 years longer than your Stone Age
precursors. It is highly unlikely that your birth will kill you or your
mother or that, in later life, you will suffer typhoid, plague, smallpox,
dysentery, polio, or dentistry without anaesthetic. You will enjoy a
standard of living that would have glazed the eyes of the Emperor Nero,
thanks to the 2% annual economic growth rate sustained by the developed
world since the industrial revolution. You will have access to greater
knowledge than Aristotle could begin to imagine, and to technical
resources that would stupefy Leonardo da Vinci. You will know a world
whose scale and variety would induce agoraphobia in Alexander the Great.
You should experience relative peace thanks to the absolute technological
superiority of the industrialised world over its enemies and, with luck
and within reason, you should be able to write and say anything you like,
a luxury denied to almost all other human beings, dead or alive. Finally,
as this artificially extended sojourn in paradise comes to a close, you
will attain oblivion in the certain knowledge that, for your children,
things can only get better.

Such staggering developments have convinced us that progress is a new law
of nature, something that happens to everything all the time. Microsoft is
always working on a better version of Windows. Today's Nokia renders
yesterday's obsolete, as does today's Apple, Nike or Gillette. Life
expectancy continues to rise. Cars go faster, planes fly further, and one
day, we are assured, cancer must yield. Whatever goes wrong in our lives
or the world, the march of progress continues regardless. Doesn't it?

Almost certainly not. The first big problem is our insane addiction to
oil. It powers everything we do and determines how we live. But, on the
most optimistic projections, there are only 30 to 40 years of oil left.
One pessimistic projection, from Sweden's Uppsala University, is that
world reserves are massively overstated and the oil will start to run out
in 10 years. That makes it virtually inconceivable that there will be
kerosene-powered planes or petroleum-powered cars for much longer. Long
before the oil actually runs out, it will have become far too expensive to
use for such frivolous pursuits as flying and driving. People generally
assume that we will find our way round this using hydrogen, nuclear, wave
or wind power. In reality, none of these technologies are being developed
anything like quickly enough to take over from oil. The great nations just
aren't throwing enough money at the problem. Instead, they are preparing
to fight for the last drops of oil. China has recently started making
diplomatic overtures to Saudi Arabia, wanting to break America's grip on
that nation's 262 billion barrel reserve.

Even if we did throw money at the problem, it's not certain we could fix
it. One of the strangest portents of the end of progress is the recent
discovery that humans are losing their ability to come up with new ideas.

Jonathan Huebner is an amiable, very polite and very correct physicist who
works at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake,
California. He took the job in 1985, when he was 26. An older scientist
told him how lucky he was. In the course of his career, he could expect to
see huge scientific and technological advances. But by 1990, Huebner had
begun to suspect the old man was wrong. "The number of advances wasn't
increasing exponentially, I hadn't seen as many as I had expected - not in
any particular area, just generally."

Puzzled, he undertook some research of his own. He began to study the rate
of significant innovations as catalogued in a standard work entitled The
History of Science and Technology. After some elaborate mathematics, he
came to a conclusion that raised serious questions about our continued
ability to sustain progress. What he found was that the rate of innovation
peaked in 1873 and has been declining ever since. In fact, our current
rate of innovation - which Huebner puts at seven important technological
developments per billion people per year - is about the same as it was in
1600. By 2024 it will have slumped to the same level as it was in the Dark
Ages, the period between the end of the Roman empire and the start of the
Middle Ages.

The calculations are based on innovations per person, so if we could keep
growing the human population we could, in theory, keep up the absolute
rate of innovation. But in practice, to do that, we'd have to swamp the
world with billions more people almost at once. That being neither
possible nor desirable, it seems we'll just have to accept that progress,
at least on the scientific and technological front, is slowing very
rapidly indeed.

Huebner offers two possible explanations: economics and the size of the
human brain. Either it's just not worth pursuing certain innovations since
they won't pay off - one reason why space exploration has all but ground
to a halt - or we already know most of what we can know, and so
discovering new things is becoming increasingly difficult. We have, for
example, known for over 20 years how cancer works and what needs to be
done to prevent or cure it. But in most cases, we still have no idea how
to do it, and there is no likelihood that we will in the foreseeable
future.

Huebner's insight has caused some outrage. The influential scientist Ray
Kurzweil has criticised his sample of innovations as "arbitrary"; K Eric
Drexler, prophet of nanotechnology, has argued that we should be measuring
capabilities, not innovations. Thus we may travel faster or access more
information at greater speeds without significant innovations as such.

Huebner has so far successfully responded to all these criticisms.
Moreover, he is supported by the work of Ben Jones, a management professor
at Northwestern University in Illinois. Jones has found that we are
currently in a quandary comparable to that of the Red Queen in Through the
Looking Glass: we have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same
place. Basically, two centuries of economic growth in the industrialised
world has been driven by scientific and technological innovation. We don't
get richer unaided or simply by working harder: we get richer because
smart people invent steam engines, antibiotics and the internet. What
Jones has discovered is that we have to work harder and harder to sustain
growth through innovation. More and more money has to be poured into
research and development and we have to deploy more people in these areas
just to keep up. "The result is," says Jones, "that the average individual
innovator is having a smaller and smaller impact."

Like Huebner, he has two theories about why this is happening. The first
is the "low-hanging fruit" theory: early innovators plucked the
easiest-to-reach ideas, so later ones have to struggle to crack the harder
problems. Or it may be that the massive accumulation of knowledge means
that innovators have to stay in education longer to learn enough to invent
something new and, as a result, less of their active life is spent
innovating. "I've noticed that Nobel-prize winners are getting older," he
says. "That's a sure sign it's taking longer to innovate." The other
alternative is to specialise - but that would mean innovators would simply
be tweaking the latest edition of Windows rather than inventing the light
bulb. The effect of their innovations would be marginal, a process of
making what we already have work slightly better. This may make us think
we're progressing, but it will be an illusion.

If Huebner and Jones are right, our problem goes way beyond Windows. For
if innovation is the engine of economic progress - and almost everybody
agrees it is - growth may be coming to an end. Since our entire financial
order - interest rates, pension funds, insurance, stock markets - is
predicated on growth, the social and economic consequences may be
cataclysmic.

Is it really happening? Will progress grind to a halt? The long view of
history gives conflicting evidence. Paul Ormerod, a London-based economist
and author of the book Why Most Things Fail, is unsure. "I am in two minds
about this. Biologists have abandoned the idea of progress - we just are
where we are. But humanity is so far in advance of anything that has gone
before that it seems to be a qualitative leap."

For Ormerod, there may be very rare but similar qualitative leaps in the
organisation of society. The creation of cities, he believes, is one.
Cities emerged perhaps 10,000 years ago, not long after humanity ceased
being hunter-gatherers and became farmers. Other apparently progressive
developments cannot compete. The Roman empire, for example, once seemed
eternal, bringing progress to the world. But then, one day, it collapsed
and died. The question thus becomes: is our liberal-democratic-capitalist
way of doing things, like cities, an irreversible improvement in the human
condition, or is it like the Roman empire, a shooting star of wealth and
success, soon to be extinguished?

Ormerod suspects that capitalism is indeed, like cities, a lasting change
in the human condition. "Immense strides forward have been taken," he
says. It may be that, after millennia of striving, we have found the right
course. Capitalism may be the Darwinian survivor of a process of natural
selection that has seen all other systems fail.

Ormerod does acknowledge, however, that the rate of innovation may well be
slowing - "All the boxes may be ticked," as he puts it - and that progress
remains dependent on contingencies far beyond our control. An asteroid
strike or super-volcanic eruption could crush all our vanities in an
instant. But in principle, Ormerod suspects that our 200-year spree is no
fluke.

This is heartily endorsed by the Dutch-American Joel Mokyr, one of the
most influential economic historians in the world today. Mokyr is the
author of The Lever of Riches and The Gifts of Athena, two books that
support the progressive view that we are indeed doing something right,
something that makes our liberal-democratic civilisation uniquely able to
generate continuous progress. The argument is that, since the 18th-century
Enlightenment, a new term has entered the human equation. This is the
accumulation of and a free market in knowledge. As Mokyr puts it, we no
longer behead people for saying the wrong thing - we listen to them. This
"social knowledge" is progressive because it allows ideas to be tested and
the most effective to survive. This knowledge is embodied in institutions,
which, unlike individuals, can rise above our animal natures. Because of
the success of these institutions, we can reasonably hope to be able,
collectively, to think our way around any future problems. When the oil
runs out, for example, we should have harnessed hydrogen or fusion power.
If the environment is being destroyed, then we should find ways of healing
it. "If global warming is happening," says Mokyr, "and I increasingly am
persuaded that it is, then we will have the technology to deal with it."

But there are, as he readily admits, flies in the ointment of his
optimism. First, he makes the crucial concession that, though a society
may progress, individuals don't. Human nature does not progress at all.
Our aggressive, tribal nature is hard-wired, unreformed and unreformable.
Individually we are animals and, as animals, incapable of progress. The
trick is to cage these animal natures in effective institutions:
education, the law, government. But these can go wrong. "The thing that
scares me," he says, "is that these institutions can misfire."

Big institutions, deeply entrenched within ancient cultures, misfired in
Russia in 1917 and Germany in 1933, producing years of slaughter on a
scale previously unseen in human history. For Mokyr, those misfirings
produced not an institutionalism of our knowledge but of our aggressive,
animal natures. The very fact that such things can happen at all is a
warning that progress can never be taken for granted.

Some suggest that this institutional breakdown is now happening in the
developed world, in the form of a "democratic deficit". This is happening
at a number of levels. There is the supranational. In this, either large
corporations or large institutions - the EU, the World Bank - gradually
remove large areas of decision-making from the electorate, hollowing out
local democracies. Or there is the national level. Here, massively
increased political sophistication results in the manipulation, almost
hypnotising, of electorates. This has been particularly true in Britain,
where politics has been virtualised by new Labour into a series of
presentational issues. Such developments show that merely calling a system
"democratic" does not necessarily mean it will retain the progressive
virtues that have seemed to arise from democracy. Democracy can destroy
itself. In addition, with the rise of an unquantifiable global terrorist
threat producing defensive transformations of legal systems designed to
limit freedom and privacy, the possibility arises of institutional
breakdown leading to a new, destructive social order. We are not immune
from the totalitarian faults of the past.

The further point is that capitalism is one thing, globalisation another.
The current globalisation wave was identified in the 1970s.

It was thought to represent the beginning of a process whereby the
superior performance of free-market economics would lead a worldwide
liberalisation process. Everybody, in effect, would be drawn into the
developed world's 200-year boom. Increasingly, however, it is becoming
clear that it hasn't happened as planned. The prominent Canadian thinker
John Ralston Saul argues in his book The Collapse of Globalism that
globalisation is, in fact, over and is being replaced by a series of
competing local and national interests. Meanwhile, in his book Why They
Don't Hate Us, the Californian academic Mark LeVine shows that the
evidence put forward by globalisation's fans, such as the World Trade
Organization, conceals deep divisions and instabilities in countries like
China and regions like the Middle East. Globalisation, he argues, is often
just making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is also destroying
local culture and inspiring aggressive resistance movements, from student
demonstrators in the West to radical Islamicists in the Middle East.
Progress is built on very fragile foundations.

Or perhaps it never happens at all. John Gray, professor of European
thought at the London School of Economics, is the most lucid advocate of
the view that progress is an illusion. People, he says, are "overimpressed
by present reality" and assume, on the basis of only a couple of centuries
of history, that progress is eternal. In his book Al Qaeda and What It
Means to Be Modern, he argues that human nature is flawed and
incorrigible, and its flaws will be embodied in whatever humans make. Joel
Mokyr's institutions, therefore, do not rise above human nature: they
embody it. Science, for Gray, does indeed accumulate knowledge. But that
has the effect of empowering human beings to do at least as much damage as
good. His book argues that, far from being a medieval institution as many
have suggested, Al-Qaeda is a supremely modern organisation, using current
technology and management theory to spread destruction. Modernity does not
make us better, it just makes us more effective. We may have anaesthetic
dentistry, but we also have nuclear weapons. We may or may not continue to
innovate. It doesn't matter, because innovation will only enable us to do
more of what humans do. In this view, all progress will be matched by
regress. In our present condition, this can happen in two ways. Either
human conflict will produce a new ethical decline, as it did in Germany
and Russia, or our very commitment to growth will turn against us.

On the ethical front, Gray's most potent contemporary example is torture.
For years we thought the developed world had banished torture for ever or
that, if it occasionally happened here, it was an error or oversight, a
crime to be punished at once. Not being torturers was a primary indicator
of our civilised, progressive condition. But now suicide terrorism has
posed a terrible question. If we have a prisoner who knows where a
suitcase nuclear weapon is planted and refuses to talk, do we not have the
right to torture him into revealing the information? Many now reluctantly
admit that we would. Even the means of his torture has been discussed: a
sterilised needle inserted beneath the fingernail. Having suffered this
pain for a few seconds when having an anaesthetic injection prior to the
removal of a nail, I can personally attest that it would work.

The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is now arguing for giving proper
legal status to torture. "Torture is a matter that has always been
unacceptable, beyond discussion. Let's not pretend, those days are passed.
We now have ticking-bomb terrorists and it's an empirical fact that every
civilised democracy would use torture in those circumstances." Dershowitz
doesn't like the "surreptitious hypocrisy" that allows torture but
pretends it doesn't. Look, he says, at the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
the Al-Qaeda planner captured in 2003 in Pakistan. American interrogators
subjected him to "water-boarding", effectively threatening him with
drowning. This wasn't classified as torture because he wasn't hurt, but of
course it was.

Dershowitz thinks a legal basis for torture would prevent abuses like the
horrors perpetrated in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. If, for example, Tony
Blair or George Bush had to sign a torture warrant, the whole business
would be kept visible and legal. For Gray, torture represents obvious
regress. Dershowitz partly agrees but argues that progressives must be
ready to do deals. "Terrorism is a major step backwards in civilisation.
Hitler was a major step backwards. Sometimes we have to step backwards too
to combat such things. But progress happens in other areas. A generation
now growing up may have to accept more security measures and less privacy,
but in other areas like sexual conduct we are making progress. I don't
think overall we are making a step back."

Progress, therefore, is faltering but, on aggregate, it moves in the right
direction. Hitler was defeated and judicial torture may, in time, defeat
terrorism. We just have to accept that three steps forward also involves
two steps back. The point is to keep the faith.

But what if it is just faith? What if the very "fact" of progress is
ultimately self-destructive? There are many ways in which this might turn
out to be true. First, the human population is continuing to rise
exponentially. It is currently approaching 6.5 billion, in 1900 it was
1.65 billion, in 1800 it was around a billion, in 1500 it was 500m. The
figures show that economic and technological progress is loading the
planet with billions more people. By keeping humans alive longer and by
feeding them better, progress is continually pushing population levels.
With population comes pollution. The overwhelming scientific consensus is
that global warming caused by human activity is happening. According to
some estimates, we will pass the point of no return within a decade.
Weather systems will change, huge flooding will occur, and human
civilisation if not existence will be at risk. This can be avoided if the
US and China cut their carbon-dioxide emissions by 50% at once. This won't
happen, as they are fighting an economic war with progress as the prize.
There are many other progress-created threats. Oil is one diminishing
resource, and fresh water is another, even more vital one. Wars are
virtually certain to be fought to gain control of these precious liquids.

In addition, antibiotic drugs are currently failing through overuse. No
new generation of medicines is likely to be available to replace them in
the near future. People may soon be dying again from sore throats and
minor cuts. The massive longevity increase in the 20th century may soon
begin to reverse itself.

Joel Mokyr's response to all this is that our open-knowledge societies
will enable these problems to be solved. John Gray replies: "This is
faith, not science." We believe we can fix things, but we can't be sure.
And if we can't, then the Earth will fix them herself, flicking the human
species into oblivion in the process.

Of course, the end of the world has been promised by Jews, Christians,
Muslims and assorted crazies with sandwich boards for as long as there has
been a human world to end. But those doomsdays were the product of faith;
reason always used to say the world will continue. The point about the new
apocalypse is that this situation has reversed. Now faith tells us we will
be able to solve our problems; reason says we have no answers now and none
are likely in the future. Perhaps we can't cure cancer because the problem
is simply beyond our intellects. Perhaps we haven't flown to the stars
because our biology and God's physics mean we never can. Perhaps we are
close to the limit and the time of plenty is over.

The evidence is mounting that our two sunny centuries of growth and wealth
may end in a new Dark Age in which ignorance will replace knowledge, war
will replace peace, sickness will replace health and famine will replace
obesity. You don't think so? It's always happened in the past. What makes
us so different? Nothing, I'm afraid.

                   WHY I AM SAVING THE WORLD

So, as a new Dark Age approaches, are you just going to carry on living
your life as if nothing has changed? John-Paul Flintoff, for one, decided
he couldn't bury his head in the sand. He explains how he went on a
one-man crusade to show that humanity can adapt and survive:

I had just dropped my daughter at the nursery when I began to save the
world. I mention this detail because it's important to emphasise that
Nancy loves her nursery. If she didn't, I wouldn't drive four miles from
home - into London's congestion zone, at a cost of L8 a day. I wouldn't
have found myself in Connaught Square that morning, fretting about
newspaper stories suggesting the price of petrol was going up. I wouldn't
have seen a woman sitting inside a peculiar car parked beside me. Nor
would I have noticed, on returning to my VW Golf from the nursery, that
the car had moved some yards away and the woman had disappeared.

Intrigued, I wandered over and scribbled in my notebook. When I got home I
began to investigate what I had seen. It may seem grandiose to describe my
actions that morning, and in the days that followed, as "saving the
world". It may be factually incorrect, because I may not have averted
global catastrophe after all. You decide - but first get your head round
the following, rather terrifying background information. A barrel of oil
contains the equivalent of almost 25,000 hours of human labour. A gallon
of petrol contains the energy equivalent of 500 hours - enough to propel a
three-ton 4x4 along 10 miles; to push it yourself would take nearly three
weeks. To support economic growth, the world currently requires more than
30 billion barrels of oil a year. That requirement is constantly
increasing, owing to population growth, debt-servicing, and the rapid
industrialisation of developing countries such as India and China. But we
are about to enter an era in which less oil will be available each year.
And many believe that industrial society is doomed. Are we really running
out?

Well, half of all supplies come from "giant" oilfields, of which 95% are
at least 25 years old; 50% have been producing for 40 years or more. In
the North Sea, production peaked in 1999. Late last year, Britain began to
import more oil than we export. Worldwide, discoveries of new oilfields
peaked in the 1960s; and despite technological advances, new discoveries
are at an all-time low. A recent story in The New York Times suggested
that oil companies are failing to recoup exploration costs: significant
discoveries are so scarce that looking for them is a monetary loser. Not
that I normally read The New York Times' coverage of the oil business -
like most people, I have tended to consider news about the oil industry to
be extremely dull. That started to change when it crept out of the
business pages and into the general news, and into advertisements.
Practically every day, it seemed, a big oil company took a whole page to
promote the fact that we are facing a crisis. One, paid for by Chevron,
called on readers to help find a solution. I visited Chevron's website,
www.willyoujoinus.com, where a whirring clock monitored worldwide oil
consumption: nearly 1,500 barrels a second. The more I read, the scarier
it became. Michael Meacher, who was Britain's environment minister for six
years, is plainly terrified. "The implications are mind-blowing...
Civilisation faces the sharpest and perhaps most violent dislocation in
recent history."

Matthew Simmons, a Houston-based energy-industry financier and adviser to
George Bush and Dick Cheney, was asked in 2003 if there is a solution. He
replied: "The solution is to pray."

These people are not loonies. Optimists believe that the market - the law
of supply and demand - will solve the problem. As oil becomes more
expensive, we'll shift to some other energy source. But do high prices
really cut demand? Since early 1999, oil prices have risen by about 350%.
Meanwhile, demand growth in 2004 was the highest in 25 years. That's bad
news, because the market won't push energy companies into pursuing
alternative sources of energy until oil reaches considerably higher
prices. And then it will be too late to make the switch.

The former oil-industry executive Jan Lundberg reckons the crisis will be
sudden. "Market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices
skyward," he says. "And the market will become paralysed at prices too
high for the wheels of commerce and daily living." So forget the price at
the pump: when oil becomes truly unaffordable, you will be more worried
about the collapse of distribution networks, and the absence of food from
local shops.

Ecologists use a technical term, "die-off", to describe what happens when
a population grows too big for the resources that sustain it. Where will
die-off occur this time? Everywhere. By some estimates, 5 billion of the
world's 6 billion population would never have been able to live without
the blessed effects of fossil fuels, and oil in particular: oil powered
the pumps that drained the land, and from oil came the chemicals that made
intensive farming possible.

If oil dries up, we can assume, those 5 billion must starve. And they
won't all be in Africa this time. You too may be fighting off neighbours
to protect a shrinking stash of canned food, and, when that runs out,
foraging for insects in suburban gardens.

Dr Richard Duncan, of the Institute on Energy and Man, has monitored the
issue for years. "I became deeply depressed," he notes, "when I first
concluded that our greatest scientific achievements will soon be forgotten
and our most cherished monuments will crumble to dust." Of course, this
isn't the first time people have predicted imminent apocalypse. During the
late 19th century, Londoners feared they would all be killed by the
methane in horse manure. But oil is certain to run out eventually, and
most experts believe that will happen during the lifetimes of people now
living. Pollyannas point out that the size of official oil reserves went
up dramatically in the 1980s, and the same will happen again as oil
companies discover new oilfields. But geologists say the world has been
thoroughly searched already.

Not everyone believes we're doomed. Cheerier prognostications suggest that
our future will more closely resemble 1990s Cuba. The American trade
embargo, combined with the collapse of Cuba's communist allies in eastern
Europe, suddenly deprived the island of imports. Without oil, public
transport shut down and TV broadcasts finished early in the evening to
save power. Industrial farms needed fuel and spare parts, pesticides and
fertiliser - none of which were available. Consequently, the average Cuban
diet dropped from about 3,000 calories per day in 1989 to 1,900 calories
four years later. In effect, Cubans were skipping a meal a day, every day,
week after month after year. Of necessity, the country converted to
sustainable farming techniques, replacing artificial fertiliser with
ecological alternatives, rotating crops to keep soil rich, and using teams
of oxen instead of tractors. There are still problems supplying meat and
milk, but over time Cubans regained the equivalent of that missing meal.
And ecologists hailed their achievement in creating the world's largest
working model of largely sustainable agriculture, largely independent of
oil.

Can we steer ourselves towards the Cuban ideal? If so, how?

Well, let me tell you what I did. First I switched exclusively to wind
power as the source of my domestic electricity, through a company called
Ecotricity, which promises the price will not differ significantly from
what I paid before. Then I got a man round to give us a quote for
installing double-glazed sash windows. The latest, high-specification
glass, I was told, traps domestic heat but allows sunlight to pass
through, which means you can turn the thermostat right down in winter. I
contacted a company that specialises in solar power. If I acted quickly, I
could get government subsidies. I put my name down for a domestic wind
turbine - apparently, traffic at the end of my street makes a greater
racket, but I would need planning permission. The turbine would cover
roughly a third of my electricity needs. The cost: L1,500.

I bought a tray for sprouting seeds (highly nutritious, apparently) and
started the long process, as yet unresolved, of persuading my wife that we
must dig up our flowerbeds and turn the garden into an allotment. I even
got in touch with a local vicar who keeps chickens in his garden, and
asked how I might do the same.

Does this really amount to "saving the world"? I've saved the best till
last. Remember Nancy's nursery, and the peculiar car I saw in Connaught
Square? The car is called a G-Wiz; it runs entirely on electricity, has
four seats and storage in the bonnet, and is no bigger than a Smart car. A
G-Wiz costs as little as L7,000. It does not incur road tax. It's in the
cheapest insurance bracket, and exempt from the congestion charge. In
Westminster you can park for nothing in pay-and-display spaces, or in your
local car park, with free electricity to charge the batteries.

The downside? It can't go faster than 40mph, and the batteries go flat
after about 40 miles. That didn't bother me: we'd use it in London, and
for trips further afield we could hire a car. There was one problem.
Unless local councils install a socket on the pavement, the only people
who can run an electric car are the lucky few with off-street parking.

So I started a campaign. I wrote a letter to drop through my neighbours'
doors, explaining about the coming oil crisis and describing the electric
car. I promised to write to the council urging it to install electric
sockets if at least a few of my neighbours would do the same. Within
hours, two names appeared. Over the next couple of weeks, eight others had
joined them. With this support, I wrote to my local councillors. For good
measure, I sent through government proposals to subsidise that kind of
installation by up to 60%. Placing my order for the G-Wiz, I popped a
non-refundable cheque for L1,250 in the post. I would just have to hope
Barnet council comes through before the car arrives.

I felt proud to belong to a district that was saving the world. And, to be
honest, I felt rather pleased with myself. I sent for some fake parking
tickets to leave on the windows of petrol-guzzling 4x4s. And I wrote a
letter to the Saudi oil minister, urging him to invest in alternative
energy technology before it's too late.

It has been a long and tiring campaign. I realise it may not work. I don't
honestly believe most people will be motivated to match my shining
example. Eventually, the government will impose the kind of restrictions
normally used in wartime. When that happens, we'll move out of London to
begin a new life of genuine self-sufficiency.

                  Oil isn't only useful as fuel

Most oil we consume is burnt as fuel. But hundreds of everyday objects are
made from petrochemicals. We take them for granted now, but to drive your
car, or fly away on a holiday that might just as well have taken place
near home, is to burn a valuable resource that can be used to make
products like these:

Household: Ballpoint pens, battery cases, bin bags, candles, carpets,
curtains, detergents, drinking cups, dyes, enamel, lino, paint, brushes
and rollers, pillows, refrigerants, refrigerator linings, roofing, safety
glass, shower curtains, telephones, toilet seats, water pipes.

Personal: Cold cream, hair colour, lipstick, shampoo, shaving cream,
combs, dentures, denture adhesive, deodorant, glasses, sunglasses, contact
lenses, hand lotion, insect repellent, shoes, shoe polish, tights,
toothbrushes, toothpaste, vitamin capsules.

Medical: Anaesthetics, antihistamines, antiseptics, artificial limbs,
aspirin, bandages, cortisone, hearing aids, heart valves.

Leisure: cameras, fishing rods, footballs, golf balls, skis, stereos,
tennis rackets, tents.

Agriculture: Fertilisers, insecticides, preservatives.

Other: Antifreeze, boats, lifejackets, glue, solvents, motorcycle helmets,
parachutes, tyres.

                How to survive when the oil runs out

Living without oil, if we don't start to prepare for it, will not be like
returning to the late 1700s, because we have now lost the infrastructure
that made 18th-century life possible. We have also lost our basic survival
skills. Dr Richard Duncan, of the Institute on Energy and Man, believes
that we will return to living in essentially Stone Age conditions. Here is
a taste of how to deal with the essentials.

Water: Animal trails lead to water. Watch the direction in which bees fly.
Make containers from animal bladders and gourds.

Food: To remove the bitterness from acorns, soak them in a running stream
for a few days. The common dandelion is a versatile and delicious plant.
Open pine cones in the heat of a fire to release the nuts inside.

Luxuries: Make soap using lye (from hardwood ash) and animal fat. For
candles, sheep fat is best, followed by beef. (Pork fat is very smelly and
burns with thick smoke.)

Medicine: Use hypnosis for pain control. Frame suggestions positively. Use
the present tense. Be specific and use repetition. Keep it simple.

Develop a survivor personality: Survivors spend almost no time getting
upset. They have a good sense of humour and laugh at mistakes.

From: When Technology Fails: A Manual for Self-Reliance and Planetary
Survival, by Matthew Stein

 Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.


---------15 of 15--------

 Here at Fed-funded
 Bless U, we faith-baste the young
 to torture for Christ.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments