Since Hurricane Katrina I’ve returned several times to look at the Pentagon’s study, published 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”.
The paragraphs I’ve been drawn to are the following:
Steven LeBlanc, Harvard archaeologist and author of a new book called Carrying Capacity, describes the relationship between carrying capacity and warfare. Drawing on abundant archaeological and ethnological data, LeBlanc argues that historically humans conducted organized warfare for a variety of reasons, including warfare over resources and the environment. Humans fight when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment. Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid. From hunter/gatherers through agricultural tribes, chiefdoms, and early complex societies, 25% of a population’s adult males die when war breaks out.
Peace occurs when carrying capacity goes up, as with the invention of agriculture, newly effective bureaucracy, remote trade and technological breakthroughs. Also a large scale die-back such as from plague can make for peaceful times—Europe after its major plagues, North American natives after European diseases decimated their populations (that’s the difference between the Jamestown colony failure and Plymouth Rock success). But such peaceful periods are short-lived because population quickly rises to once again push against carrying capacity, and warfare resumes. Indeed, over the millennia most societies define themselves according to their ability to conduct war, and warrior culture becomes deeply ingrained. The most combative societies are the ones that survive.
However in the last three centuries, LeBlanc points out, advanced states have steadily lowered the body count even though individual wars and genocides have grown larger in scale. Instead of slaughtering all their enemies in the traditional way, for example, states merely kill enough to get a victory and then put the survivors to work in their newly expanded economy. States also use their own bureaucracies, advanced technology, and international rules of behavior to raise carrying capacity and bear a more careful relationship to it.
All of that progressive behavior could collapse if carrying capacities everywhere were suddenly lowered drastically by abrupt climate change. Humanity would revert to its norm of constant battles for diminishing resources, which the battles themselves would further reduce even beyond the climatic effects. Once again warfare would define human life.
The scenarios of catastrophe which may be caused by global warming are less interesting to me at the moment than the relationship of warfare to carrying capacity laid out in what seems a neat and logical way, but is more like a slasher’s history of the world in which huge chunks have been excised as irrelevant. “Need that? Nope. Don’t need that, complicates things. Cut that.” I’ve not read LeBlanc’s book, so I can’t remark on it, instead I’m only remarking on this particular report. The History of the World is big and sprawling and I know very little of it, but from my untidy corner I’ve managed to carve out of in-the-box’s walls, over the years, a few windows, and reading the above paragraphs I noticed how it seems outstripping the carrying capacity of the environment infers real need, not taking into account conspicuous consumption, nor was distribution of wealth mentioned.
Reading, I had a rude vision of Bush flying over New Orleans thinking, “Readjusting our carrying capacity.”
Here is my history of the world–or at least what I know of the Euro-American world–and maybe Rome and some other assorted empires. I’ve not a single study to back me up. Not one. I can’t dump any sources on you. But here goes.
The well-to-do sit down to eat at a fine feast and they don’t know when to stop.
That’s it. That’s my course in economics.
And they complain that the impoverished have uncontrollable appetites which know no moderation.
When the slave class can no longer support the burden of the wealth of the rich, then the rich begin to talk “carrying capacity”.
Reading the report my thoughts didn’t go to warfare between nations but a class and race war that’s being waged within the United States.
Here in America some States exercise the death penalty against individuals convicted of certain extreme acts of violence. In the wake of Katrina, some public sentiment on the right has been tantamount to declaring a death sentence against any who are economically and physically disadvantaged. Not that this hasn’t already been the case in America, and Katrina exposed it.
There are some individuals who condemn the survivors and casualties trapped in the hurricane and flood for not planning ahead, state this is the number one reason for poverty, not planning ahead, and pretty much condemn them all to the waters that overtook them.
Rescue and relief is being talked about, by some others on the right, as if it is welfare.
In connection with Katrina aid, several conservative websites had links to Gerry Phelps’ “What the Poor are Like”. A sample of one of the postings is below:
Gerry Charlotte Phelps shares lessons learned the hard way about working with poor people. She’s not saying we can’t help the poor victims of Katrina better themselves once the immediate emergency is over. She’s just warning that it may not be as easy as some people like to think.
And from another site:
Here’s a sad — albeit eye-opening — post detailing just how different the truly multi-generational poor are from the Middle and Working Classes — published to help prepare those who are taking in Katrina refugees
…taking the poor out of the confines of New Orleans, and disbursing them throughout healthier environments may actually help the poor by exposing them to behaviors new to them (interactive child care, the virtue of work, etc). The whole idea about rebuilding N.O. and pouring the poor right back into their crowded communities — communities that reinforce damaging behaviors — may be the worse thing we can do to them. Perhaps N.O. should become a simple port city, with homes for oil rig and dock/port workers — and nothing more.
How does rescue and relief for survivors of a hurricane that affected 90,000 square miles, and the flood that swallowed most of New Orleans and the lower parishes turn into a “social experiment” ? The below is from a comment left on one of the above blogs.
Nothing can pop a rescue fantasy like hard reality. It is wonderful that people want to help the hurricane victims but the situation is more complicated than mere “rescue”, and after a few days, weeks, and conflicts later the reality will set in. I eagerly await reports regarding the success rate of this interesting social experiment.
Now, you tell me, please. What the hell does any of this have to do with rescue and relief of hurricane and flood survivors? And, no, don’t say well it’s because they were impoverished that put them in peril in the first place, don’t tell me that in the way the right intends it, because that is still putting blame on the impoverished for being victims of a catastrophe, and also neglects the fact that included among those unable to escape were the feeble, the elderly, the sick and the children.
No, what I’m saying is since when did rescue and relief from a disaster turn into a moralizing issue? As if the hand that comes along and plucks you from the flood says, “Tsk, tsk, we can’t make it too easy for you. It’s your failed morals that got you into this position in the first place, and in exchange for our saving you it is now your duty to reform.”
It begins to sound a lot like an old testament god sending the flood to wipe away the evil of the earth. Noah, the good, who planned ahead, made it out. But in the modern world, since god promised never to destroy all life again by means of flood, that means the riffraff are flushed to their roofs. Rescue them, as you humanely must, but convict them of their evil which caused their lives to be overtaken by the waters in the first place.
A posting that covers a number of bases in this regard I give below, in its entirety, becaust it’s exemplary of the above attitude.
Source: Mikesnoise
Two of the most disturbing aspects of mankind’s sinful nature are our willingness to covet, and our appetite for revenge. We’re seeing these two traits exemplified without restraint right now in New Orleans.
As I blogged earlier, the residents of New Orleans are disproportionately poor. About 1/3 of the residents live below the poverty level. Most of these are black. They have lived this way for generation upon generation, back to the days following Reconstruction. They are mostly working poor, depending on hourly jobs to barely make ends meet.
Ok, so far so good. Except that when you’re working poor you can’t barely make ends meet. The ends stay far apart and hell of a lot of needs fall, untended, through the gap between.
One of the most challenging aspects of working with the perpetually poor is that they hold a deeply ingrained belief that someone or something else — “the man”, “the system” — is responsible for their plight. They feel that they are trapped in a world where the priviledged strive to keep everyone else down, and they are convinced that, save for winning a lottery or becoming successful in show business or sports, they will always be poor for the rest of their lives. Such irrational beliefs often foster and perpetuate wild conspiracy theories – “George Bush and the CIA invented crack cocaine to kill black people,” etc. And being poorly educated, for the most part, doesn’t help.
The acknowledgement was made the working poor have it tough. Now, however, they are at fault for not pulling themselves up by bootstraps in a system that hamstrings through slave wages and a hacked up social safety net through which fall any experiencing the personal hardships of illness or periodic unemployment in these years of economic instability when job availability has been in the low-paying service industry.
Now that something threatens to destroy the only world that they know — jobs, family, community, neighbors, homes — what are they to do? The anger and resentment that the impoverished feel toward the larger world, a resentment that is nurtured by inadequate education and poverty-exploiting civil rights leaders, is usually dampened by law enforcement. But when law enforcement fails, literally all “hell” breaks loose, and the poor exact their “revenge.” Looting becomes less about finding food, and more about getting even. For these people, a stolen TV or Gameboy represents a piece of the dream that has been denied to them by the rich white man.
But what do they do next?
I find it utterly amazing that those in the middle of such a tempest of destruction and suffering can make pure materialism their most important priority. It’s fascinating to watch people carrying looted items on their heads because the streets are flooded waist-high. What on earth are they going to do with television sets or a microwave ovens when their houses are being washed away? Hasn’t anyone thought any of this through?
Indeed, I didn’t notice new televisions and microwaves piled high in front of the Convention Center, at the Superdome and on top of the roofs of flooded houses and apartments, which is odd because I’m certain if they’d been there the media would have zeroed in on them. When the National Guard said, “Sorry, can’t take your salvaged belongings with you on the bus, no room,” well, think of all those television sets taken from those arms and piled up high outside those buses. What a sight it must have been. I wish I had pictures. Where are they?
Sadly the answer is “no.” Impoverished people in the United States have long been obsessed with materialism. Crime is rampant in inner city neighborhoods because youths place such a high priority on expensive, showy items — cars, jewelry, shoes, electronics, etc. For them, it is less of an evil to break the law by stealing or selling drugs than it is to go without the “bling.”
Make a note of that. Only impoverished people are obsessed with materialism. The middle class and upper class are not. The middle class and uppper class may be stuffed full of goods but evidently one is not obsessed with materialism if one is able to afford whatever one might materially want or need. Also, the middle class and upper class don’t do drugs. Or when they do it is an illness. But when the poor or working poor do drugs then it is a moral failing.
Impoverished people in America also consistently fail to plan beyond the immediate future. There are a variety of reasons for this, not the least of which is the gigantic government entitlement safety net that we have created. The idea seems to be, irregardless of how frivolously I spend my pocket money, the state will always be there to pay for my food, rent, and doctor bills.
Pennies for pocket money doesn’t do much in the safety net and planning ahead game, especially if you’re looking under the cushions for pennies with which to buy necessities, like food. It doesn’t take much of a brain to calculate that even at $8 an hour (far above the minimum wage) you’re talking $320 a week is $1280 a month before taxes taken out. Subtract rent and food from that and let’s see how far you can go in the planning ahead department. Much less on minimum wage. There is simply no surviving on it. There is no “frivolous” spending on that kind of income because that kind of income simply doesn’t allow for it. I can tell you that life on welfare doesn’t look so hot to me either. If I was on a game show and someone pulled aside a curtain and said, “Your prize! Life in the projects! Rent and food on the state!” I’d pass. But if I was on welfare, despite real welfare payments having declined already by 50% between 1975 and the 1996 welfare reform bill, I’m telling you that life on minimum or low wages that would leave me unable to pay for even rent and food, wouldn’t be a great incentive for me to find work in a system in which the top 5% possesses more than half the wealth, the top 20% possesses more than 80% of the wealth, leaving the bottom 20% with no assets. The top 1% holds half of all non-home wealth, the top 10% own 85% of outstanding stocks, 85% of financial securities, 90% of business assets–a despicable inequality in distribution of wealth that surpasses any other any other advanced industrial country.
Those are statistics from 1998. The disparity is even greater in 2005. And I wonder if the statistics include the growing number of individuals who have fallen through the cracks and aren’t counted at all except for an occasional attempt at estimating the number of homeless.
But now the system in New Orleans has completely broken down, and the destruction has reached such an ultimate level that there is nothing but hopelessness and despair for many of its citizens. No one can magically replace their belongings, or guarantee them a job, or even restore the meager standard of living that they once had. For maybe the first time in their lives, the future is uncertain. Survival becomes — literally — every man for himself.
What the hell is this numbnut talking about? When are the lives of the disadavantaged not uncertain? And again, show me the pictures of the piles of looted electronics stacked head-high at the convention center and the superdome and on the interstates upon which rooftop survivors were dropped.
What in the world does any of this have to do with rescue and relief? Impoverishment, fragility, vulnerability has to do with why so many were left behind in New Orleans. It has nothing to do with rescue and relief.
Revisit the statistics on wealth in the U.S. from 1998 and let’s talk carrying capacity and who’s carrying who.
In class war or any other kind of war, I can tell you whose 25% of the adult male population isn’t and won’t be dying in order to adjust the balance.
Another survivor’s account is at Ratboy’s Anvil.
Leave a Reply