The Sad Inevitability of Liberal Democratic Decline

The wolves are at the door.  Authoritarian regimes are multiplying.  Nativist political movements are on the rise.  A lifeboat mentality is beginning to take hold in formerly open, progressive societies.  Fear is taking hold.  Is there nothing to be done?

Perhaps the most powerful warning signal of the precarious position of our world is the recent success of the anti-immigrant, far right party in Sweden, a country that had been the bastion of liberal democracy and an example of successful efforts to form an equal, peaceful and thriving society.  But recent immigrant waves and increases in crime and gun violence have heightened tensions and created a tide of nationalism and nativism that threatens to profoundly change Swedish society.

 

The rise of populism is not recent or surprising.  The uneven balance sheet of globalization, free trade, outsourcing and technological progress over the last 30 years left much of the middle and lower middle class frustrated and resentful.  Then came the added burden of refugees from a long series of wars in the 1990’s and 2000’s as well as the ever-increasing waves of immigrants from countries with broken political systems and drug-gang infested cities.

 

But now the world is grappling with even greater threats on multiple fronts.  Three years of pandemic, a Russian war of aggression in the Ukraine, global inflation and climate change have created ideal conditions for a toxic political backlash against liberal democracies and globalization.

 

These latest crises have accelerated the refugee and immigrant flow and crippled the economies that these asylum seekers have pinned their hopes on.  There is growing resentment in the industrialized nations of these ‘outsiders’, some of it xenophobic and racist, but some of it simply a fear that there is not enough work or resources to share.

 

Refugees and immigrants can be assimilated in small numbers without destabilizing a nation, but the modern tidal wave of desperate Middle Eastern, African, Eastern European, and Central American people has overwhelmed even the most kind-hearted nations.  The developed nations that they flee to now have their own problems – inflation, a looming recession, increased political unrest and general disenchantment.  The milk of human kindness is running thin.

 

As global warming puts even greater pressure on many poor countries this flood of refugees will only increase.  This will in turn fuel the careers of power-hungry demagogues.  There is no easier target for fear-mongering than immigrants and refugees.

 

This sad progression seems inevitable at this point.   There is always hope that we will somehow maintain our civility and find a way to make the lifeboat of earth work for all of humankind.  But Sweden’s transformation may be the canary in the coalmine for a type of political change that bodes ill for us all.

Vacation Travel and a Guilty Conscience`

In Scandinavia they have a term for it:  flygskam – flight shame.  This expresses the guilt feelings and shame that many are beginning to have over the use of jet travel to indulge one’s wanderlust.  Another expression, tågskryt - train brag, is the corresponding positive feeling that one has when utilizing a more ecofriendly transportation option.  The Germanic languages have such a lovely way of encapsulating complex concepts in a single word.

Now I could argue that it is easy enough and a bit disingenuous for Europeans to indulge in such fine-tuning of conscience given the compact nature of their countries, the travel distances and their delightful train network.  But how the world travels and what impact it has on hydrocarbon emissions and global warming is a reasonable thing to ponder.

 

I won’t go into the details, but a little simple math yields the fact that an airplane is about 4 times as efficient as a car in taking people from A to B.  The average miles per gallon of an airplane is about 100, whereas it is closer to 25 for a car in round numbers.  Sounds good, right?

 

The problem is that air travel racks up the miles much, much faster than car travel.  If the average American puts 10-12,000 miles a year on his car, then a trip to Europe more than doubles that mileage.  Even a trip to California and back from the east coast increases it by half.

 

Between business travel and pleasure travel jet engines contribute about 2.5% of global emissions of CO2.  This seems like a small number, but when normalized to a per capita statistic it takes on a different meaning.  A small percentage of the world’s inhabitants use air travel.  In 2018, 11% of the global population took a flight, 4% flew abroad and 1% was responsible for half of global aviation emissions.

And private jets are the worst offenders – with a typical private jet owner emitting on average 540 times the hydrocarbons the average person will emit.  So it is not so much the total impact I and others are having through our privilege of our travel, but the unfairly disproportionate share we so blithely take as our own.

Yes, of course we all worked hard for our success.  And business and tourism travel are major engines for the world economy.  A world without jet travel would be a very different world.  Nothing is simple.

 

Unfortunately, airplanes are unlikely to go electric in the near future – the battery and motor technologies are a long way from being capable of powering a large plane over any distance.  There are efforts to optimize fuel economy and there have been significant improvements, but air travel will never get close to zero emissions. 

 

As a relatively recent retiree and avid traveler, I struggle somewhat with the pangs of conscience.  But those air travel specific pangs are just part of a package of guilt that anyone who is honest and logical has for having won the lottery of birth and opportunity.  I could stop traveling, just as I could give all my money away or live in a 'tiny house' or stop taking showers or never eat meat again or spend all of my time working in homeless shelters.  But I won’t.

 

I rationalize that I will only be doing this type of extravagant travel for a few years and will eventually ramp down to domestic road trips in an electric car.  But in the meantime, I will just have to wrestle with flygskam along with all the other contradictions and paradoxes in life that confront me.

Population Growth - Too Much or Too Little?

As if the world didn’t have enough of Elon Musk’s musings, he recently made the news with the claim that population decline is a greater problem than climate change.  He was quoted as saying (which I must admit is a somewhat clever turn of phrase) "If the alarming collapse in birth rate continues, civilization will indeed die with a whimper in adult diapers." 

The global birthrate is indeed declining.  The graph below shows the change over the last 70 years.  It has basically been cut in half.  

Developed countries have seen their birthrates fall particularly quickly, as seen in the second graph. Japan has had such a rapid decline that it is predicted that their population will be cut in half by the end of the century.  They are particularly vulnerable because they do not generally allow immigration.

It is interesting to compare Musk’s dire warning with previous hysterias that have posited almost exactly the opposite point of view.  In the early 1800’s Robert Malthus developed a theory that population growth would overwhelm the world’s ability to produce food and that a natural collapse due to famine and/or war would result.  He argued that population growth is exponential whereas the growth of resources is more linear.  At the time, any curbs on fertility such as birth control were considered immoral so the birthrate would naturally approach exponential growth.  

 

Malthus described what has since been termed the ‘Malthusian Trap’ - that technological progress in agriculture and industry would allow human population to explode and eventually outpace production of food.

 

When one looks at the history of population growth in human society it is not hard to believe that Malthus was correct on the effect of technology on population.  See the graph below:

The danger of over-population was embraced and ratcheted up several notches by Paul Ehrlich in the 1970’s with his explosive book ‘The Population Bomb’.  The opening paragraph read:

 

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

 

Paul Ehrlich appears to have been a bit hyperbolic in his prediction, but his description of the stress that a growing world population puts on resources and the environment was prescient.

 

So, who is right?  Are we facing imminent disaster from over-population or is civilization going to implode due to a declining birthrate?  Well, both!

 

The problem with a declining birthrate is that it has the potential to create nations of old people who drain resources while a diminishing number of young workers struggle to support them and keep the economy afloat.  This is a very real danger and is already having significant effect in Japan.  

 

The problem is not with a lower birthrate, but with how rapidly the birthrate decreases.  Stability is the key word here.  Given how desperate the global warming crisis is, there is no doubt that the world would be better off with less people demanding energy and using up natural resources.  There is no a priori need for world population to continue growing to prop up the economy and maintain civilization.  But if it slows down too rapidly, the economic and social/cultural effects will be de-stabilizing and possibly catastrophic.

 

The best method for stabilizing populations and gradually reducing total population would be to allow more fertile immigrants from lands where climate change, poverty and political instability are rampant into countries where lower birthrates are threatening to have destructive consequences.  This would kill the proverbial two birds, and even a third, with one stone – solve immigration problems, stabilize declining populations, and mitigate climate change.  The sad fact is that such a remedy is completely out of the realm of possibility in these times of populism, authoritarianism and governmental paralysis.  And so it goes.

Energy - the Paradox of Social Responsibility and Personal Freedom

One of my daily French podcasts mentioned the goal of the French government to reduce energy use 10% by 2024 and 40% by 2050.  The following laws were put in place last month:

• No store or business may operate air conditioning while an outside door is open
• No store or business may cool below 26 deg C (78.8 deg F) or heat above 19 deg C (66.2 deg F)
• No lights are allowed to be illuminated from 1-6 am.  
• The speed limit on highways has been decreased from 130 to 120 km/hr (78 to 72 mph).  The limit on rural roads had already been decreased by from 90 to 80 km/hr (50 mph).
• Individuals are strongly encouraged to observe the same restrictions (though not legally bound) and are encouraged to do the following:
• Take showers rather than baths
• Minimize use of lights
• Optimize use of dishwashers and washing machines (i.e. use when full)

How do you think these measures and recommendations would go over in the USA?  Would there be howls of outrage and indignation?  Would there be cries of ‘big brother’ and ‘police state’?  Would people vow to oppose these restrictions in the name of freedom?

 

The answer is yes.  Americans don’t like to be told what to do.  Don’t tell us we can’t buy a gas-guzzling SUV or pickup truck.  Don’t tell us we need to recycle.  Don’t tell us we can’t use a leaf gas blower in our yard.  Don’t tell us we can’t put our A/C or our heat at 72 degrees.

 

The world is in a climate crisis.  The effects of global warming are already quite significant and promise to increase in severity year by year.  We must face the fact that the earth is not simply our playground, but a living organism to which we must adapt our behavior.

 

The USA is by far the largest user of energy per capita in the world.  The table below shows the per capita total energy usage (in kWh) as well as oil/gas usage (in barrels) for the major industrialized countries.  We use almost twice the amount of energy per capita as any other country.

Most Americans seem to believe that they should be free to buy anything they want and use any amount of energy or water as long as they can afford it.  Occasionally, we are willing to observe water restrictions during a local drought, but I am doubtful that support for such restrictions could be sustained over a longer term as a general commitment to water conservation.

 

We Americans can be very generous in a crisis, but we chafe at any longer-term sacrifices for the common good.  We are suspicious of global efforts to reduce hydrocarbon emissions and have eschewed a leadership role in the fight against global warming.  

 

With our wealth and power, we may be able to perpetuate this bunker mentality for some years to come and mitigate some of the disastrous effects that have already been visited upon this ailing planet.  But we are in the wrong on this issue and we have already lost a great deal credibility on the world stage because of our stubborn refusal to act with any real commitment.  A day will come when we will be forced to recognize that social responsibility and obligations to the common good must ultimately trump some aspects of personal freedom.

A Dysfunctional Society - Guns, Violence, Inequality, Incarceration

Murders and violent crime are increasing.  One hears it all around, neighbors voicing their concerns – “The streets aren’t safe anymore”, “I just bought a gun to protect my house”, “The police are afraid to do their job anymore”.

Societal problems are complex.  America has a many times greater percentage of its people in prison than other developed nations.  It has much more gun violence.  It has a greater disparity in wealth and income than other wealthy nations and that disparity has grown rapidly over the last 30 years.

 

The last few years have added other huge problems to our list of woes – the continuing saga of COVID, rampant inflation and the multiplying effects of climate change.  We are not unique in our afflictions.  Every nation is struggling with some mix of problems.  But they seem particularly acute and paradoxical in the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth.

 

When crime increases in the United States, we demand stricter enforcement, more police, longer sentences, less leniency.  We manufacture more guns.  It’s a vicious circle.  

 

Ironically, in recent years we had finally begun to see a bi-partisan effort to address the problems of over-incarceration.  And there seemed to be at least some recognition that we could begin to decrease inequality through investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare and childcare.  But those efforts will probably go dormant now, as fear overtakes reason.   No one will be in the mood for reform.  Indeed, there will be indignant calls for aggressive police action and tactics, and for tightening the belt of government spending.

 

Why is there so much crime here?  Why do we have so many firearm deaths?  Why are we the undisputed world leader in mass shootings?

 

Until we understand and acknowledge that these problems have deep roots in our culture, our economy and our government we are destined to repeat the cycle again and again.   

The Anti-Abortion Movement Reflects a Deep Fear of Changes in Sexual Morality

The abortion rate reached a high in the early 90’s and has been going down ever since.  The increasing effectiveness of new birth control devices, in particular birth control implants, has been accelerating the decline of abortions.  The logical way to minimize abortions would be to encourage utilization of effective birth control methods, make them widely available and disseminate information about them through sex education classes.  Everyone wants there to be fewer abortions.

 

So why is the anti-abortion movement so determined to criminalize abortion, creating a new, never-ending, unwinnable conflict like the Prohibition Era or the War on Drugs and risking all of the horrible consequences that have historically been associated with back-alley abortions?  They will say that is because abortion is murder, but I believe there is another more fundamental fear that motivates this crusade: the rapid changes in sexual morality.

 

Sexual practices and societal views on sex have changed radically since the 60’s due to several factors – introduction of effective contraception, later marriages, changes in women’s role in society, cultural openness and media coverage, scientific understanding of sexuality, etc.

 

These shifting values on sex, sexuality and gender generate a deep unease in fundamentalist Christians (and probably in fundamentalist Muslims and Jews as well). They threaten the very foundation of Christian beliefs for people who crave a very unambiguous definition of proper personal morality and adhere to a non-scientific view of the world.

 

I can understand their discomfort.  In a single generation, or perhaps two, the Christian ideals of marriage, virginity, chastity and gender have undergone radical change.  Casual sexual relations are common; premarital sex is almost a given; homosexuality has become accepted and even mainstream with transsexuality, drag queens, bisexuality and transgender issues surfacing as well.  It is in many respects a strange new world.

 

It was comforting to have a set of well-defined rules to live by, but it was also unrealistic in many ways, and never truly very simple. As our understanding of the human body, sexuality and psychology have advanced, so has our recognition that life and relationships are neither simple nor static.  

 

Has the pendulum swung too far?  Is sex and all of its manifestations such an obsession in our society and our culture that there needs to be a counter-revolution that will bring things back under control?  I believe this is the underlying impetus of the anti-abortion movement.  It is a desperate rear-guard action to hold the line in the evolution of sexual behavior.  

 

This misguided effort to stem the tide will fail.  The genie of sexual openness is out of the bottle.  It will never go back in.  The current wave of experimentation and re-definition of gender and sexuality may temper in the future, indeed there are signs that it already is beginning to do so, but we will never go back to a society where chastity and virginity are prized and homosexuality is condemned and vilified.

 

The biblical literalists have lost battle after battle against the march of science and reason.   It is time for them to join the rest of the world in trying to comprehend what is the most humane and loving way to lead lives in this world.

 

Of course we all want less abortions!  Of course we all want less sexual violence!  Of course we all want to be super careful in how we handle new ideas about gender identity and transitioning. Of course we want to avoid having sex become a damaging addiction or obsession. 

 

We need to view sexuality and gender though the lens of what will make people happy and fulfilled, and most importantly not hurt people.  It won’t be easy or simple, and we will make mistakes along the way, but it certainly won’t be based on arbitrary rules or writings from thousands of years ago.

  

The Logical Absurdities of the Idea of God's Plan

 I am all for spiritual quests and faith.  Life is often difficult and we grow increasingly aware of our mortality with the ceaseless march of time.  If spirituality, whatever that term may mean, gives us relief from life’s woes and death’s approach, then by all means let us seek it.  I have been a very ardent Christian adherent in the past, and though my theological point of view is much more abstract and ambiguous these days, I still choose to believe there is something eternal, something 'godly' in ourselves and our universe.

But I am not a fan of the concept of God’s Plan.  I believe it is employed to cover a multitude of sins and is often divisive and hurtful.  The idea that God has fully planned out this world and our lives seems patently absurd to me.  There is no logic in it and one simply has to abandon all rational analysis to hold to this belief.  In the end, it is another human system of defining winners and losers.

To interpret life's events in terms of a Godly plan is to beg the question of why some are favored and some are not.  This is reminiscent of the ancient belief that the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished, that there are the chosen and the discarded.

 

‘God has a plan for all of us’, ‘Inshallah’, ‘Everything happens within God’s plan’, ‘God has done great things in my life’, ‘God’s plan is good!’ – these are the expressions one hears that give voice to the idea of God as a great planner.  But these same voices contradict themselves.  When asked if God’s plan is also responsible for evil, then they say that there is free will and God is not a puppet master.  But if God is not a puppet master, then how can He or She ensure that the plan is carried out?  The standard answer to this question is that this is a mystery and we cannot understand the nature of God, which is of course a total copout. 

To associate God's plan with some events but not to others makes no sense.  Many events in this world are unfathomably sad or brutal.  Is the child who dies at birth part of God's plan?  How did God's plan work out for the serial killer or the drug addict or the quadriplegic?

And to say that God has a plan but that our free will and our actions may alter this plan doesn't hold water either.  That is a goal or a hope, not a plan. If God's plan can actually be altered by actions then there are a billion such actions that we make in our lives and no plan would ever be carried out exactly as 'God planned'.  Either God is in full control or has no control.  Having a bit of control isn't a plan.

 

Some people say that God knows our hearts and knows what will happen.  But this is omniscience, not planning!  If everything happens within God’s plan, then He or She must be in full control, not merely an observer. 

 

There is a broader question of whether God intercedes at all in our lives, which again confronts a logical conundrum.  What would cause God to intercede?  When does He decide to cure someone’s disease or get them a good job or grant them admission to the first-choice school or cause them to win the championship?  And why would he decide not to do the same for someone else?  What kind of scorecard of good deeds, bad deeds, prayer circles, and other metrics would God need to have to make any sense at all out of interceding in human affairs?

If one argues that God's love can have an impact on the world and in an indirect way influence events or create something good after misfortune or tragedy, then I find no logical contradiction there.  It is a consolation and an appealing aspect of spiritual faith to believe that some sort of higher power of love and kindness imbues human beings with the will to do good things.  However, this is not a plan, except in a very broad sense.

 

And if one says ‘God’s will be done’ or ‘Inshallah’ as a way of expressing resignation to life’s vicissitudes, there is no harm in it.  We must all come to terms with the fickle nature of life and must use any tools available to achieve some level of solace.  

But the rational basis for the interpretation of life events in terms of direct intercession by God does not exist and I find it hard to believe that assigning either misfortune or good fortune to God’s plan can ever be anything but respectively profoundly distressing or obscenely egotistical.