Saturday, November 12, 2011

And We're Very Very Pissed Off


          The Things you own end up owning you.  Ah, the wisdom of Tyler Durden from  Fight Club.


           So we were studying about Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist who worried about over population, yet had like 5 or 6 kids of his own. Aptly, he went on to develop his theory , The Tragedy of the Commons, to explain why people go ahead and do things when they know that in the long run its going to hurt them. It states basically:

1. People are selfish douchebags and are only looking out for #1
2. Because we are all greedy bastards, we are going to deplete our resources and f*#k 
    everything up
3. And like a fat lady blowing her diet on a donut - we go ahead and do it anyway


           Hardin theorizes that there only two things that will stop us:

 - Adding yet another layer of greed by turning over our resources to multinational capitalist corporations so they can privatize things like land, air and fresh water - because, of course only the rich deserve to breathe. All joking aside, Hardin thought that privatization was an efficient way of conserving resources . . . well duh.
                                                                     -OR -
- Adding an authority - laws, penalties, sanctions that will bully, guilt, coerce and strong arm people into changing their ways - kind of like a red-faced, harried angry mother screaming at her kids "you better straighten up - or else . . ." What the or else means, I don't know, but sounds scary.



The Age of Stupid, a really really funny mockumentary movie that perfectly demonstrates the Tragedy of the Commons, but you haven't seen it and you won't see it because it's British and Netflix sucks.
 In the desolate future of 2055, an archivist (Pete Postlethwaite) combs through a vast collection of videos to learn what went wrong with the planet. His research points to the first decade of the century, when humans blithely ignored the warning signs of climate change. The footage he views is actually culled from real-life interviews conducted by the filmmaker, whose sharp -- and darkly funny -- insights populate this sobering documentary.



                                    And to a leaser degree, though equally hysterical  is the movie Idiocracy, which touches on certain elements of the Tragedy of the Commons, particularly  in regards to a certain segments' over eagerness to procreate. Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.






                      So, with a firm grasp of the Tragedy of the Commons in mind, the question arises, what does it mean to own a natural resource - and is privatization a good or a bad thing?  Answering like the Pinko my mother accuses me of being - I say, oh hell no - no one has a right to own a resource that is necessary to maintain life. While I think that pizza and Yoohoo are integral  to a high quality of life, they are certainly not essential. So if the manufacturer decides to be a jerk and raise the price of  Yoohoo to $10 a bottle, or decides to stop selling it in Indiana (never going to happen) no big deal, I'll switch to TruMoo or something. But what if Bloomington decides to sell control of it's municipal water supply to Donald Trump and The Donald decides he's going to charge a $5000 hook up fee and raise the rates to $20 a gallon - then I'm screwed. I don't have that kind of money. What am I going to do - Febreeze and waterless shampoo only go so far. It sounds crazy - but it's not.


                        Folks all over the world face this very dilemma - water sources are privatized and poor people have no access. Think of the implications: cooking, hygiene, health. . . what would you do? And it's not just happening in countries like Bolivia and Tanzania -  it's happening right here in the USA,.as city water supplies around the nation are being sold off to the highest bidder. Prices are raised to insure maximum profit for shareholders, while the poor must do without and endure the suffering. Municipalities claim they can no longer afford to supply the water and privatization is prudent. Private water suppliers claim that higher rates lead to water conservation - and rich folk just don't really give a rat's butt, they can afford it and they don't find it necessary to conserve - they can pay the bill - no problem. So where is the accountability? There is none. Corporations don't have to answer to voters. Chalk it up to the inhumanity of commerce. 


                       But what's next? How else are they going to commandeer natural, vital resources and sock it to the poor all in the name of conservation - housing and food costs are already exorbitant, you have to pay to poop and bathe (sewer and water). . . if there was only a way they could charge for air . . . I am sure the World Bank  has a think tank full of jackasses trying to figure that one out. Garrett Hardin aside, it all comes down to the fact that first and foremost we are human beings, and the basic necessities needed to maintain life should not be commodified,because if they are, we all lose our humanity. Sound conservation of the Earth's resources require stewardship, not ownership. Plentiful resources for the rich should not be bought with the misery of the poor. 
                      
                        Once again, Tyler Durden sums it up best . . . DO NOT F*#K  WITH US!

                            
For a heart wrenching look at the complexities, politics and pain of  the commodification and privatization of the water supply please check out A World Without Water 
                  
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3930199780455728313


             Every day 300,000 children die due to lack of water and poor sanitation. Billions of people do not have access to safe water. Environmental change threatens to make this situation worse but a more immediate danger is emerging. Control of the world's water is falling into the hands of the rich and water may soon take the place of oil as the world's most tradeable - and coveted - commodity - not a basic human right. In a future when market forces set the price of a glass of water, will many more people will be left too poor to drink?


Check out Water in the Movies: The Good the Bad and the Ugly
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/water-in-the-movies-the-g_b_686646.html

                         



4 comments:

  1. Hey Arlene, first of all, it's just "Fight Club", not "The Fight Club". If you use some quotes from a movie, at least get the movie right =D. I personally consider this to be an egregious error that must be rectified immediately, but to each his own.

    Secondly, I'll address your overall aversion to privatization, which I also agree with. However, have you considered why privatization can be good a thing? Think for instance that perhaps the local government of Sooskatoof, Pennsylvania can no longer afford to keep paying the input costs associated with their one water filtration plant, but elect to not privatize due to their natural disinclination to privatize. What are the ramifications of this? Well, if they continue to lack the funds for full operation, the plant will perhaps fall into disrepair, and the hundreds of people who rely on that water every day fall into sickness due to metal poisoning. Would privatization be in the town's best interest then?

    What if the government decides not to just give a hugely profitable monopoly (As seen in A World Without Water) to a large corporation but rather just gives them one where they have to operate as an actual competitive business? Does this raise questions as to if a different implementation of privatization could be much more effective than the ones we've seen?

    ReplyDelete
  2. First off Zach - I apologize for my most extreme ignorance regarding Fight Club - I do a sacrilegious disservice to a totally awesome movie and will correct this horrible situation. I totally hate myself now.

    I guess I have an immediate aversion to anything when I hear PRIVATIZE - in my head I hear that word and what I really hear is greedy scum sucking pigs. I really have a hard time living in a capitalistic society - I think there are some things that people should have access to free of charge, just because they are human - water, healthcare . . .Yoohoo. I know I know, nothing is free, but I think there are some things that society as a whole should pay for and not make the poor do without - cable TV NO - water YES.

    YOu brought up an interesting point about government awarding contracts to private4 suppliers only if they charge a going fair rate - I still say no, not for things like water. I think back to the movie about that poor lady in Detroit - no one in America should have to live like that. Beside, if a company can't price fix and gouge customers, why would they want the contract.

    Perhaps things like water delivery might be better if it was heavily regulated - the same price in every city? No profits to be made?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh my eff this is great!!! It really is a slap in the face of anyone who thinks owning water is cool...which it's not. The light, in-the-face delivery and use of outside sources was just...great!!! If you can link Fight Club and water ownership together, than you can do anything. Ever. Because I don't think anyone would have thought of that. But it was brilliant. But, I do feel that you only gave one side, anti-privatization, without explaining good situations of privatization. But overall, a great way to deliver a not-so-great subject.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good one Vabna, if I ever get busted in Houston I'll give your company a call - right after I call Saul

    ReplyDelete