More Than Mold

In the bottom drawer of my refrigerator I sometimes find an orange that has been ignored for what appears to be a very long time.  At some point during this orange’s life in the dark drawer, a few mold spores found their way onto its surface.  The spores then harvested nourishment from the orange and began grow and multiply.  The mold continued to consume the nutrients that the orange provided and continually procreated until it eventually covered the entire surface of the orange.  A good time later, the orange was depleted of useful nutrients, leaving the dried, fuzzy, disgusting and useless green ball that I later discovered.

I can’t help but to compare ourselves to that mold.  At some point in the life of the planet Earth, we humans found our way onto its surface.  We then harvested the life giving nutrients of the Earth and began to grow and multiply.  Like mold, we behave as if our “orange” will never run out of nutrients because the surface seems infinite in comparison to our tiny selves, so we continue to harvest, grow, and multiply.  To me it seems inevitable that someday far into the future, mankind may experience the same fate as the mold.

In his book “How We Believe”, Michael Shermer identifies the reasons why most of us believe in God.   From numerous surveys, Shermer identifies two primary and distinct reasons; (1) without God we would have no moral values; and (2) without God we would have no purpose.  The first of these two reasons is arguable because moral values are life promoting values.  Mold has life promoting values – that is to say that the mold is not likely to do things which are destructive to their own success as a life form, therefore the mold’s ability to coexist and not destroy one another simply allows it to survive as a species.  Hence, our morals do not make us any better than mold.  The second reason we believe in God is a need for purpose, which is far more complex.  If our sole purpose as ordained by God is to “be fruitful and multiply” we are once again no better than mold.  So what is it that gives us greater purpose?  Perhaps we should take a harder look at the orange, and at that commandment.

Notice Genesis 1:31 -“God saw all that he had made, and said This Is Good.”  Why then would he want us to systematically sap the Earth of energy and nutrients, ultimately destroying the Earth as the mold did to the orange?  Now take a look at Genesis 31:28 –“Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth…”   Replenish?  Why haven’t we heard more about this word?  Is the care and replenishment of the Earth our higher purpose? 

Imagine a mold that has the ability to take stock of the nutrients in the orange and is able to create ways to grow, reuse, and increase those nutrients.  Moreover, imagine a mold that has the ability to recycle waste and place it back into the orange for future generations.  It would certainly increase the livability of the mold on that particular orange.  More importantly, it would be a  truly unique species of mold!  If we truly believe we are better than mold, we must work together to increase our sustainability on this planet.  We must create renewable resources that enable each of us to tap less from the planet.  We must stress the importance of energy efficiency and a light footprint.  We must find ways to grow and multiply while furthering resources for our descendants.  In the long run, perhaps this will be the only thing that makes us truly more than mold. 

Tony F.  2013

The Real News

Imagine an evening news cast that starts something like this:

 “In America today, 6,758 people died.  4,923 of the dead were over 65 years of age.  336 people died today as a result of an accident, and 145 were killed by means of suicide or murder. 31 were killed with a firearm.  112 died today in auto related incidents.  It was an average day.  Also in America today, more than 300 million people coexisted peacefully.  In today’s news we will only focus on the most intriguing accidents and murders.  They are as follows…”

The stories we hear on the evening news are the stories of the unusual, the sensational, and the scary.  The producers decide which stories are told based on the amount of interest, emotion, or drama they will evoke from their audience.  For this reason, we seldom hear the real news.  The numbers in the paragraph above are based on real 2010 death data from the U.S. Centers of Disease Control.  Thousands of Americans die each day, mostly after long and painful struggles with disease.  Although these deaths are extremely difficult for the families involved we don’t hear about them because they are far too common and unpreventable to keep our interest.  Consequently, the violent murder of 22 kids at Sandy Hook completely overshadows the deaths of 6,730 others who die every day, 28 of whom are also kids. 

It is difficult to hear news like that of Sandy Hook Elementary.  These events are staggering to all of us, particularly because the victims are young, beautiful, healthy, vibrant, defenseless and innocent people.  The largest school killing in American history was done in 1927 in Bath, Michigan.  The attack was carried out with explosives by a school board member.  The second deadliest was carried out at Virginia Tech in 2007 by a student with two handguns.  The most infamous school killing was carried out at Columbine High School with illegally obtained guns and homemade explosives during the time that assault weapons were banned.  The most recent was carried out at Sandy Hook with legal and registered guns taken from the killer's mother.  These are sensational anomalies carried out by disturbed people, and no new law would have stopped their illegally hatched plans.  These insane killers wanted to be sensationalized in the headlines.  Nonetheless, we can't force the news to tell only boring stories.

One good thing in America over the last 20 years is a measurable reduction in overall crime.  According to statistics from 1960 to present, the US Disaster Center reports that crime reached an all-time high in 1990 and 1991 at about 8.3% per capita.  That is to say that approximately 8 out of 100 Americans were arrested for some sort of crime, violent and non-violent, in a given year.  There are several theories for the climb from 1960 to 1990, such as increased drug use, increased liberalism, and a general disregard for authority.  A counter theory suggests that the climb was due to stricter law making and increased reporting.  Yet another theorizes that we fell out of touch with one another due to increased population and limited contact.  After 1991, however, the crime rate declined back down to today’s rate of 5.7% per capita.  What caused this noticeable decline in crime is the subject of wide debate.  In their book “Freakonomics”, writers Steven Levit and Stephen Dubner present the very controversial theory that the decline in crime coincides with the passing of Roe v. Wade, thus increasing abortion among families who are at the highest risk of future crime.  Other theories cite better crime investigation and high-tech deterrents.  Yet another theorizes that social websites, cell phones, and text allow us to keep each other in check.  Either way the news is good, and when it comes to crime we become safer each day.

11 times more deadly than guns

In the heat of recent tragedy, our politicians are proposing new legislation in the hope of reducing future risk.  Given the real facts, the only proposed laws that might help are the ones governing the size of clips, increasing the magnitude of background checks, and increasing psychological support.  We may also gain some ground by vigilantly enforcing current laws.  In truth, we are 11 times more likely to be killed by a car than we are of being killed by a gun, yet we are not debating car control.  If an insane killer chose to ram a car through a crowd of people we would most likely regard this a one-of-a-kind unpreventable tragedy.  We would focus much more heavily on the killer's state of mind than we would on the car. 

Tony F.  2013

Four Big Fibs About National Debt

In August of 2011 I wrote a post called “The Pity Party” which discussed the political cost of our battle over the National Debt.  Well, they are at it again.  Now that the debt ceiling has once again reached its maximum, the conservative wing has decided to leverage this opportunity to force cuts in government spending.  In order to achieve this goal, conservatives need to bend the truth just a bit. 

Fib #1 – The debt is caused by increased spending.

Conservatives have created the illusion that the Obama administration has somehow increased spending by trillions of dollars.  This is simply not true.  There are three primary reasons for our growing deficit:  1) Economic changes resulting in lower tax revenue.  2) Tax cuts and economic stimulus.  And 3) Increased military spending, primarily due to war.  Of these, the largest factor is sharp reduction in tax revenue.  The Bush era tax rates were the lowest in 60 years, and were designed to spur the economy, but the Bush administration took no action to reduce spending.  Instead they chose to apply it toward debt.  Much of the continuing deficit during the Obama administration is due to continuance of Bush policy, not new spending instated by Obama.

Fib #2 – The debt is the highest ever.

As a reader of statistical data, you must be very wary of the words highest ever when it comes to dollar amounts.  Because the American economy is intentionally geared to be in constant inflation, the dollar cost of everything, if held at the same value, will always be the highest ever due to inflation.  Because of inflation, the national debt must be measured in ratio to the Gross Domestic Product.  In this case the debt is high.  In fact, it is currently running at about twice the historical norm, but still not the highest ever.  The highest national debt occurred at the end of World War II and nobody suffered as a result of the payback.  The WWII debt was easily paid down and the economy continued at a moderate and healthy pace throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s.  After WWII, war expenses were covered by increased taxation therefore war costs were not applied directly toward debt until after 2001.

Fib #3 – Our kids will be paying it back.

In fact, we have rarely paid the national debt back at all.  When we did, it was done through increased taxes levied during economically stable times.  More often, the debt remained unpaid as inflation and population growth continued to spur the GDP.  Consequently, the debt would shrink in relation to GDP without any pay back.  The hard truth is that the national debt is growing primarily due to our intolerance toward taxation and our current enjoyment of historically low tax rates.  Fortunately, as our economy stabilizes and inflation continues to rise, tax income will also rise due to higher incomes.  The debt therefore shrinks in relation to GDP without placing a greater burden on our kids.

Fib #4 – Federal interest is unmanageable.

In fact, interest rates are at an all-time low, consequently Federal interest expenses are also at an all-time low.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, despite the sharp rise in the Federal Debt from 2007 to 2012, the Federal outlay for interest is actually lower today than it was in 2007.  Of course, this extremely low rate will not last forever, which raises concern over whether we will be able to pay interest in the future.  But then again, interest will only rise if inflation rises, GDP rises, and tax income rises.  In this case, the debt will self-correct as it always has.

So, as you hear that we are racing toward a fiscal cliff while holding a ticking time bomb that will cause a government shutdown, try not to panic.  These are just scare tactics designed to move you to one side of the debate.  Ultimately our leaders in Washington will find ways to increase taxes and decrease ineffective spending as needed to keep us out of hot water.  In truth, as we continue to pay lower taxes than our forefathers, we are to blame for the rising national debt.

Tony F.  2013

Digital Economy

In the latter term of the Clinton years 1996 to 2000, America enjoyed the highest per capita employment in its history.  Then George W. Bush encountered a slow economic decline until The Great Recession appeared in 2008.  Theory and debate abound as to why this pattern occurred.  Did President Bush fall short in his attempts to spur the economy?  Did the familiar GOP solution of tax cuts and de-regulation fail miserably?  Did the attacks of 9/11 permanently injure the US economy?  Perhaps the correct answer is NO to all of the above.  There was one other unprecedented and game changing event that also occurred during the late Clinton years that many of us do not recognize.  It was the proliferation of computers, internet, and digital media.

Undetected by most of us, the computer era has changed the world economy as we once knew it.  Digital media has eliminated jobs and has wiped out entire industries.  Once a child is able to read, he or she can find all of the entertainment and learning they need inside of a laptop.  With computers, entire families have less need for toys, board games, puzzles, books, newspapers, mail, stationary, calculators, art supplies, and game consoles.  Digital music has eliminated the purchase of hi-fi stereos, cassettes, recording devices, CD’s and speaker systems.  With computers, every consumer is a smart consumer.  Search engines allow us to research our own information and advice for just about anything, including real estate, law, health, vacations and travel, and contact information for anyone, thus eliminating the need for consultants, agents, doctors, guides, maps, directories, and books.  Digital photography killed Kodak while E-mail and online bill pay slowly kill the Postal Service.  Perhaps most noticeably, digital music has made record stores obsolete. 

Over time, the digital industry may continue to eliminate more jobs than it creates.  Any work that requires predictability and repetitive motion can be done with robotics.  A recent study indicates that research laboratories will be shrink as robots prepare samples, run them through standard tests, and document the results more effectively than humans while eliminating errors and reducing risk of contamination.  Family doctors may also be eliminated by comprehensive websites that provide interview questions for the patient, thus allowing the inquisitive patient to diagnose himself.  Once he has confirmed his illness he can get an
online referral to the appropriate specialist.

Of course, new building construction will also be in lower demand as E-commerce reduces the need for stores, offices, and boutiques.  Shopping centers exist on the principal that people enjoy browsing through merchandise until they find an impulse buy.  In the computer age we can do all of that with a laptop or a pad.  Anything with a shelf life can be marketed digitally.  The only buildings we will need in the long run are those that house people, services, wares, or fresh food.

In the 1950’s and 60’s, futurists dreamed of a day when we could do far more in less time by using computers and robots to handle all of our most mundane tasks.  What these futurists failed to predict is the loss of jobs for the least educated and least specialized people in the work force.  Most future jobs will require imagination, independent judgment, and creative thought – the higher thinking skills that make us uniquely human.  This is the challenge that faces our educators, strategists, futurists, and economists.  In the meantime, politicians will not solve the riddle of growing the economy and creating jobs unless they first recognize the changes of a digital economy.

Tony F.  2013

Does water conservation swim with the fishes?

In a recent town hall meeting, a Colorado Front Range official gave a presentation regarding water conservation.  He stunned the audience with this revelation:  Water conservation costs more than water supply.  He gave the example of a typical 20 year old home with bluegrass lawns and 3.5 gallon toilets.  The cost to change a toilet alone is on the order of $400, and at a charged water rate of $0.008 per gallon, the amount of water it will save results in a payback period of more than 15 years.  Then consider the cost to remove and replace a bluegrass yard with a more sensible xeriscape yard.  At the total cost of $20,000, the resulting water savings trickles in at a 22 year pay back.  Since most US home owners stay in their homes an average of 6 years, the water wise owner is unlikely to get a return on their investment.

Could the city offer more subsidies for water conservation?   Of course, but the city needs to charge higher water rates to fund subsidies therefore the city risks charging higher rates than other nearby cities.  It is not a question of how to obtain water for a town, it is more a matter of how to treat and deliver it at the lowest possible cost.  If the raw water is at a high elevation and relatively pure, the cost is much lower.   Most Colorado Front Range water is optimal due to our proximity to the Rocky Mountains, so our water is very affordable and of high quality.  Consequently, if one Colorado town decides to raise rates to encourage conservation they risk losing population.  Without a state mandate for conservation each municipality is controlled by competition.

Contrary to popular belief, indoor water conservation is only marginally effective.  Western Resource Advocates reports, “On the indoor side, water conservation efforts have very little impact on the consumptive use of water because the vast majority of water that enters a home transfers to the wastewater collection system and is then discharged back to the stream.”  Comparatively speaking a cut in irrigation water is far more effective.  Interestingly, developers are required to provide landscaping or groundcover over every inch of site in order to control dust and weeds.  Unfortunately water thirsty Kentucky Blue turf grass is generally the least costly and most pleasing solution.  So in an effort to beautify our local environment we make matters worse.  If we are to truly conserve water we must redefine what landscaping looks like, particularly in arid climates.  Many of these solutions are similar to those recommended by landscape author Jim Knopf. 

In truth, water is retained and used, but never truly depleted, expended, or destroyed.  Fresh water is a constantly self recycling, indestructible resource.  So why conserve?  Because, as the human population continues to grow, we will need to tap and impound more and more water, thus irreversibly destroying riparian habitats forever.  So, remember that your greatest conservation advantage is outside of the home.  A 100 square foot patch of bluegrass requires the same amount of water per year as a 12” caliper tree, and the tree has a much higher likelihood of saving energy and water by providing shade.  If your lawn needs attention, remove it and replace with a water saving option.  Then plant a tree.  Because when it comes down to a choice between the lawns and the fishes, the lawns should lose.

Tony F.