The Daily Weltanschauung

From last week's New York Times:

Scientists and development experts across the globe are racing to increase food production by 50 percent over the next two decades to feed the world’s growing population, yet many doubt their chances despite a broad consensus that enough land, water and expertise exist.

The number of hungry people in the world rose to 1.02 billion this year, or nearly one in seven people, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, despite a 12-year concentrated effort to cut the number.

It is estimated that the effects of the global recession added about 100 million people to the hunger tally.

The problem that the world faces here is quite similar to the one facing the US financial system: How do we bend the curve without incurring disastrous side effects? Just like the Medicare/Social Security/National Debt cost curve, the projections for the food production/agriculture curve are unsustainable for estimated population increases over the next 20-50 years.

In other words, there ain't enough to go around now and it's just going to get worse.

The previous green revolutions were spurred on by chemical sprays and other methods that have proven to be environmentally unfriendly and ecologically unsustainable. Presently, a large portion of arable farm land that could be used to grow food is instead being used to grow biofuel crops which are also environmentally unfriendly and ecologically unsustainable. Another large portion of arable land produces food specifically for animal feed that fuels a meat industry servicing parts of the world that don't need more food.

So, short-term solutions for our energy crisis and previous agricultural crises have created long-term dilemmas for the sustainable production of food. Equally troubling is the fact that massive portions of the world's hungriest population live in areas without adequate methodology and/or land to produce food while also being deprived of the necessary market infrastructure to distribute food at a reasonable cost.

All this and a projected global population of over 9 billion people in 2050. Barring drastic solutions, we better start looking for another planet.

The folks over at Information Is Beautiful have provided an elegantly illustrated binary breakdown of the American political system. While the format necessarily plays to certain stereotypes within both sides of the political spectrum, the information is presented in a non-biased manner that could be a vehicle for educating both sides of the divide.

If nothing else, this gorgeous chart humanizes both sides without resorting to caricature. I've always believed that the first step toward understanding people who think/believe/act differently is to set aside one's agenda, sit down, and listen with an open mind. This illustration could act as a first-step in that process for those among us who are paralyzed by partisanship and fear.

In case you're wondering where the health care debate in Congress is right now, CBS and the New York Times have excellent breakdowns of the pitfalls, upside, and major players involved.

The primary issue going forward will be the overall cost of the bill and this will be balanced with the secondary concerns of individual affordability and expansion of coverage. The recently passed Senate Finance Bill saves roughly 81 billion dollars over 10 years, but both sides of the aisle have questions on whether mandated premiums will be affordable for the middle class and whether the bill leaves too many people without coverage. However, there aren't enough votes to pass a more expensive bill that would cover more people and lower premiums through a public option.

Like anything else, this will end in a compromise that will likely upset all sides. These question remain: Can a compromise be found on meaningful reform that holds together the necessary 60 votes in the Senate? Will progressives in the House be willing to stomach a final compromise that doesn't include a public option? Will Republican Senator Olympia Snowe continue to support reform and will she be able to bring any other Republicans along with her? Will Democratic Senator Roland Burris follow through on his pledge to vote against any bill that doesn't have a public option and will he convince others like Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer and Ron Wyden to do the same?

At the end of the day, we are left with this: Most Democrats don't like the Senate Finance Committee's compromise bill and most Republicans don't like anything that will give President Obama a win. If there is a way to make health care reform happen, it is narrow and fraught with peril.

Yo Barack, I know you just won the Nobel Peace Prize and everything.. and I'mma let you finish.. but Morgan Tsvangirai is one of the most peaceful leaders of all time.. of all time!

(This from the facebook page of Zimbabwe's PM Morgan Tsvangirai and reposted with all due credit to Kanye West for his memorable outburst-cum-meme.)

Here is the relevant excerpt from Alfred Nobel's final will and testament:

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

A couple of quick reactions, based on Nobel's own standards:

1. "..the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations.." Barack Obama has made aggressive diplomacy a top priority from his candidacy until now, but thus far it has not produced much fruit. Iran has ignored him, Israel has openly flouted his direction and the Af/Pak coalition is as fragile as ever.. This seems like neither the 'most' nor the 'best' work, at least at this moment in time.

2. "..for the abolition or reduction of standing armies.." Obama has called for significant reductions in nuclear arsenals and cast a vision of a world without such devices.. Certainly, this seems at least tangentially related to Nobel's standards, although political realists would argue that nuclear weapons help encourage diplomacy because of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Going by the letter of the law, the President has not reduced or abolished any part of America's standing army and is actually very likely to oversee an expansion of the war effort in Afghanistan. This seems at best an untenable basis for the award and at worst a blatant contradiction.

3. "..and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." This idealist model of 'peace congresses' was popular during late 19th century and theorized that the nations of the world could just come to the negotiating table and address their grievances without a single shot being fired. Since then, the world has had two massive global conflicts, an extended cold war between two superpowers and more conflict and war in the 20th century than in all the centuries previous. In other words, 'peace congresses' didn't work and no one on the world stage is even trying this approach any longer. One might say that Barack Obama has furthered the ideal of peace between nations, but he has taken no formal steps toward choosing peace talks over open conflict and will only do so when American interests cannot be achieved through war. Unfortunately, the reality of the world today is that war is seen as the accepted default and an unfair burden of proof falls on peace. There is no reason to think that Barack Obama has fulfilled anything resembling Alfred Nobel's vision on this final point.

In the final analysis, the prize has little to do with the President's actual results and more to do with his subtle and not-so-subtle reversals of the previous administration's policies:

The award appeared to be a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.

While this award has generally recognized a lifetime of hard work (Jimmy Carter), it appears as though the committee has settled for a downpayment on expected results this time around.