Zero Sum World

First allow me to stipulate for the crowd that I believe that 100% is 100%, not 110%, 120% just the plain ole 100%. If we can all accept that we can move forward.

When I hear people take positions that are counter-intuitive to me it chafes a bit, when I hear people take moral stands that are conflictive it rubs me raw. The following is going to examine what I think are some of the major disconnects argued under the veil of morality that in fact are preposterous positions.

Capitalism is wrong and the United States uses to much of the worlds natural resources: To that I say, huh? The average life expectancy of a human being in 1900 was estimated at 36.2 years. By 2005 it was 65.4 and is expected to be 72.5 years by 2025 or double. I would say if one where to review the fount of that increased life expectancy, the United States, an argument can be made that maybe we used too little resources. The causes of the increased worldwide life expectancy are directly linked to improvement in sanitation, food production, medical technology, improved medicine and fewer wars. An honest look at research and development on all of those fronts lands right back to the United States, sure other countries have improved or contributed but, the overwhelming majority saw their genesis driven by the capitalistic tendencies of US citizens and the research facilities funded by the taxes collected from them. Canada and Mexico sell cheap drugs not because they are munificent but because they benefit from the R and D costs incurred by US pharmaceutical companies but do not contribute to them. The yield of crops in fields around the world are triple what they were at the beginning of the 20th century through crop research and improvements developed by US companies and universities and no royalties are paid for the general intellectual forwarding that benefits all. The first practical portable computers developed were for the Iowa Class Battleships to take into account the Coriolis effect so that the shells from their 16 inch guns could land on the Axis Powers. As an aside that is where the term “Bug in the Computer” came from, early computers were a series of relays. One day the computer would not work and upon inspection a moth was found between two contact points. The overall point of this? The world is a better place for all because of the resources spent in the United States and the entrepreneurial nature and productivity of the system that gave it birth. Until those that comment in an unenlightened manner are brought to task for their “the US is a pig” diatribes ignorance will prevail. Of course the US can do better in preserving resources but overall I would say they have been invested wisely not spent.

Abortion is a lifestyle choice, the Death Penalty is wrong: Ok, on a moral level maybe there is no absolute, just personal belief left to each of us to make. On the practical level of resource allocation however there are clear arguments to be made, remember earlier we stipulated that 100% is 100%. In most cases those that support abortion rights also are against the death penalty and the converse is also true. There is no clear cost per annum to keep an inmate on death row but for the purpose of this conversation we will use $100,000 per year. Know I posit that the decision we are making is much more practical, do you continue to invest limited resources in keeping someone on death row when you know what their contribution to society already is or do you take that same $100,000 and invest in a HeadStart program to help educate children whose potential is yet untapped? Before you start the bellowing that that is an unfair proposition I remind you of the opening statement of the article, there is no great big magical checkbook in the sky. Additionally, check your pocket, if there is any money in it at all it could have been sent somewhere in the world to purchase food or medicine and saved someone’s life today. So in truth those against the Death Penalty are only against the Death Penalty by commission, not omission.

I want what I want, facts be damned: There is a growing segment of the American populace who want to feel, not think. They also want you to feel the way that they do and will berate any attempt to reason or weigh decisions on issues to make the best choice in a sea of conflicting choices. PETA cares little for the fate of rats and they see no conflict if they kill misplaced pets because they rationalize their moral authority as enlightened. Those against the use of carbon based fuel are also against nuclear energy; those for renewable energy are against it where they can see it off of their vacation homes on Martha’s Vineyard. Women’s rights organizations fight for equality in the US but care little for the plight of women being stoned and lashed in the Middle East. Situational ethics have become so prevalent in US cause hustlers that it is hard to take any of them seriously. On one side you have those that rail against global warming and the production of CO2 and on the other you have those that say that logging is murder and they sit at the same table sipping wine as they watch forest fires on TV caused by the lack of resource management.

All in all, think. Until people start having real discussions with the understanding that choices are required the society in which we live will continue to fracture. Please oh please do not be nice to idiots, it just emboldens them. There is seldom an absolute right and wrong but there are definitely righter and wronger.