Earlier this year KKR purchased over 90% of the outstanding equity of WMF, a south German tableware manufacturer, founded in 1853 in Geislingen an der Steige, Germany, by the miller Daniel Straub and the Schweizer brothers.
On August 21, 2014 WMF announced that the Group business performed at a stable rate in first-half 2014 achieving a gross revenue of EUR 462.6. Overall revenue grew by 3% and the realised operating profit (EBIT) increased to EUR 27.6 million in comparison with EUR 17.7 million in the prior year.
On August 28, 2014 Buyout group KKR said it had obtained more than 90 percent of WMF's share capital, putting it on track to gain full control of the German cutlery and coffee-machine maker and delist it.
KKR invested 586 million Euros. It announced that it intends to find savings of 30 million Euros a year requiring the firing of hundreds of employees and the likely divestiture of some parts of the business.
There has been a lot of discussion in Germany since the financial crisis focusing on the so-called "locusts" of private equity.
The thinking is that these financial investors are only concerned in returns. They represent no social value. They don't possess a moral compass and have no compunction in destroying companies and the communities that rely upon them.
They raise funds with the stated goal to find companies that are not maximising their potential, purchase them, and through either divestiture or cost cutting, a euphemism for cutting employees, maximise the return and then sell the more valuable company on, often to another financial investor.
This is the hard end of capitalism.
It is why there is a need for regulation.
30 Millionen Euro will der neue Eigentümer KKR jährlich sparen, hunderte von Arbeitsplätzen abbauen
Wie funktioniert das Ganze? Ein Finanzkonzern wie KKR leiht sich Geld, etwa bei Banken oder Pensionskassen, um einen Fonds zu gründen. Damit kauft er Firmen wie die WMF. In nur wenigen Jahren werden die Unternehmen auf Erfolg getrimmt. Durch Verkauf einzelner Sparten oder den Abbau von Arbeitsplätzen. Das Ziel: mehr Profit. Dann wird die Firma weiter verkauft, der Fonds aufgelöst und die ursprünglichen Geldgeber werden ausgezahlt.
Monday, 13 October 2014
Thursday, 9 October 2014
Employment is the Goal
I read two conflicting articles yesterday about the levels of unemployment in Europe. The one focused on the "Participation" rate as an explanation that things aren't maybe as bad as they appear. The other suggested that changing labour laws to make it easier for employees to be fired would be the solution to Europe's unemployment dilemma.
First of all the discussion around the Participation rate essentially says that in looking at unemployment figures it is not only a question of how many people are employed but also measures the number of people either employed or actively looking for work as a share of the working-age population. Simply put if large numbers of people who could work have stopped looking and more importantly have stopped registering as unemployed then they fall off the radar and the unemployment numbers go down.
This is happening in the US apparently, while in Europe the participation rate is increasing ie more people are actively seeking employment and so even if the number of actively employed were to stay constant as a percentage of the employable population the unemployment rate would increase.
In any event all the article actually proves is that the statistics are eminently massagable depending on what you want to prove. For those of you who care the writer of the first article works at a major UK fund manager and their sources, Bloomberg, claims that the particpation rate in Europe is rising while in the US it is falling.
The second article was written by an American geopolitical thinktank. Their angle is that unemployment is the single most dangerous challenge the European Union faces and that the unemployment figures are understated as many Europeans are no longer looking for employment.
Go figure.
But their underlying assumption is that it is essentially a question of labour law regulations. In one breath they support austerity and claim that reforming labour laws to allow companies to fire employees easier will boost employment.
To be fair, the argument is that if an employer knows that they can fire an employee if the market turns against him then that same employer might be more willing to take on a new employee in the first place.
And they are probably right.
But it puts a lot of hope in the ethics of employers not to abuse the system.
My next post will look at a class of employers for whom ethics are beyond the pale.
First of all the discussion around the Participation rate essentially says that in looking at unemployment figures it is not only a question of how many people are employed but also measures the number of people either employed or actively looking for work as a share of the working-age population. Simply put if large numbers of people who could work have stopped looking and more importantly have stopped registering as unemployed then they fall off the radar and the unemployment numbers go down.
This is happening in the US apparently, while in Europe the participation rate is increasing ie more people are actively seeking employment and so even if the number of actively employed were to stay constant as a percentage of the employable population the unemployment rate would increase.
In any event all the article actually proves is that the statistics are eminently massagable depending on what you want to prove. For those of you who care the writer of the first article works at a major UK fund manager and their sources, Bloomberg, claims that the particpation rate in Europe is rising while in the US it is falling.
The second article was written by an American geopolitical thinktank. Their angle is that unemployment is the single most dangerous challenge the European Union faces and that the unemployment figures are understated as many Europeans are no longer looking for employment.
Go figure.
But their underlying assumption is that it is essentially a question of labour law regulations. In one breath they support austerity and claim that reforming labour laws to allow companies to fire employees easier will boost employment.
To be fair, the argument is that if an employer knows that they can fire an employee if the market turns against him then that same employer might be more willing to take on a new employee in the first place.
And they are probably right.
But it puts a lot of hope in the ethics of employers not to abuse the system.
My next post will look at a class of employers for whom ethics are beyond the pale.
Monday, 6 October 2014
Seeking Truths from Facts
I was recently in the US for my summer vacation and one of my small pleasures is to read the title stories of magazines such as the National Enquirer just to see what weird ideas their editors come up with to sell their magazine.
In addition to the usual "I was abducted by aliens" stories there were any number of bizarre claims about the lives of the rich and famous running from what some fourth rate soap star is doing to what's going on in the White House.
I found it hard to believe that anyone actually takes anything of what they read in such publications to be true, but then as I tried to watch the news and flipped through various news websites I begin to think that I might just be demonstrating my naivety couched in a blanked of intellectual snobbism.
Now some people might maintain that I have been outside the US too long and have not lived through the decline of the media to the point that it is difficult to know what to believe regardless of the source.
But watching the reporting on the Ebola epidemic and the amount of scare mongering in the press it is clear to me that there is no interest in reporting constructively but rather every possible opening for sensationalism is mined to provide headlines a la National Enquirer even from what I had previously held to be respectable publications.
One of my more disappointing realisations was that the Huffington Post, once a viable provider of alternative views on significant news items has essentially morphed into a Fox National Enquirer mishmash.
I am not sure who is feeding whom but the focus of the news and the polarisation of American society seem to be woven together in such an unhealthy symbiotic relationship that it is impossible to know what facts can I trust in analysing a situation to try and distill some acceptable version of the truth.
In addition to the usual "I was abducted by aliens" stories there were any number of bizarre claims about the lives of the rich and famous running from what some fourth rate soap star is doing to what's going on in the White House.
I found it hard to believe that anyone actually takes anything of what they read in such publications to be true, but then as I tried to watch the news and flipped through various news websites I begin to think that I might just be demonstrating my naivety couched in a blanked of intellectual snobbism.
Now some people might maintain that I have been outside the US too long and have not lived through the decline of the media to the point that it is difficult to know what to believe regardless of the source.
But watching the reporting on the Ebola epidemic and the amount of scare mongering in the press it is clear to me that there is no interest in reporting constructively but rather every possible opening for sensationalism is mined to provide headlines a la National Enquirer even from what I had previously held to be respectable publications.
One of my more disappointing realisations was that the Huffington Post, once a viable provider of alternative views on significant news items has essentially morphed into a Fox National Enquirer mishmash.
I am not sure who is feeding whom but the focus of the news and the polarisation of American society seem to be woven together in such an unhealthy symbiotic relationship that it is impossible to know what facts can I trust in analysing a situation to try and distill some acceptable version of the truth.
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Victors, Vanquished and Who Writes History
I recently had the pleasure to celebrate my 30th wedding anniversary where, somewhat under the influence of alcohol, I entered into a discussion of my July 3rd post "From the Outside Looking In" with some of my friends. The following is a response to them in letter form:
Hi Guys.
I have returned to London and after recovering from jet lag and partying I re-read the blog from July 3rd. I think I understand why you thought it might have been difficult to determine my nationality given the perspective from which I write.
To be frank I think over the years whenever I write about Germany I try to make a distinction between good Germans and bad Germans with an eye to their recent history and my relationship to it.
For if indeed history is written by the victors we run the risk of not only allowing the victors to write the history of the wars, but to also allow them to rewrite the entire history of the vanquished. That is what I was trying to present in the blog using the English take on the American Revolution. As we discussed I am sure that the Vietnamese take on the Viet Nam war is very different from ours. Indeed, the next time you go on a golf outing go to Bayeux in Normandy and check out the French take on William the Conqueror's "trip" to Hastings.
Recently I inherited a book from my father-in-law written in 1901 entitled "A Century of German Victories". They had no sense of guilt or shame but rather pride in their military prowess. And yet when one thinks of the modern German state we invariably find the seeds of the Third Reich in the creation of Prussia.
I am not pretending to suggest that there is no connection. But I think however that it is along the lines of the minority report-an excellent science fiction book and ok film-where even if the majority of predictions presume result 'x' there will be a report which predicted result 'y' which was never allowed to come to fruition.
History is not a straight line although the concept of manifest destiny goes a long way to suggesting that there are geopolitical themes which are almost inevitable. That doesn't have to result in genocide, though there may be a case to be made given the slaughter of the Indians in America's charge to the West and the destruction of European Jewry encapsulated in Germany's Drang nach Osten.
But that is not what I was writing about on July 3rd. I was trying to give a voice to a nation's history "before the deluge" that is not normally granted to it.
I would hope that all nations are given the opportunity by third parties to understand not only how the world sees them-but to also get a glimpse as to how they see themselves.
It could give a new meaning to the idea of globalism.
Regards,
mz
Hi Guys.
I have returned to London and after recovering from jet lag and partying I re-read the blog from July 3rd. I think I understand why you thought it might have been difficult to determine my nationality given the perspective from which I write.
To be frank I think over the years whenever I write about Germany I try to make a distinction between good Germans and bad Germans with an eye to their recent history and my relationship to it.
For if indeed history is written by the victors we run the risk of not only allowing the victors to write the history of the wars, but to also allow them to rewrite the entire history of the vanquished. That is what I was trying to present in the blog using the English take on the American Revolution. As we discussed I am sure that the Vietnamese take on the Viet Nam war is very different from ours. Indeed, the next time you go on a golf outing go to Bayeux in Normandy and check out the French take on William the Conqueror's "trip" to Hastings.
Recently I inherited a book from my father-in-law written in 1901 entitled "A Century of German Victories". They had no sense of guilt or shame but rather pride in their military prowess. And yet when one thinks of the modern German state we invariably find the seeds of the Third Reich in the creation of Prussia.
I am not pretending to suggest that there is no connection. But I think however that it is along the lines of the minority report-an excellent science fiction book and ok film-where even if the majority of predictions presume result 'x' there will be a report which predicted result 'y' which was never allowed to come to fruition.
History is not a straight line although the concept of manifest destiny goes a long way to suggesting that there are geopolitical themes which are almost inevitable. That doesn't have to result in genocide, though there may be a case to be made given the slaughter of the Indians in America's charge to the West and the destruction of European Jewry encapsulated in Germany's Drang nach Osten.
But that is not what I was writing about on July 3rd. I was trying to give a voice to a nation's history "before the deluge" that is not normally granted to it.
I would hope that all nations are given the opportunity by third parties to understand not only how the world sees them-but to also get a glimpse as to how they see themselves.
It could give a new meaning to the idea of globalism.
Regards,
mz
Friday, 4 July 2014
It's Not Really A Game Is It?
Recently it has struck me how it is openly spoken of by everyone except the people in power (in any country making a 'geopolitical' play) as to why they are supporting financially and/or militarily this group or that group as part of a strategic national interest.
The two most obvious candidates are the Russians and the Saudi Arabians.
The Russian goal is to insure that the Ukraine at the worst is a neutral country whose foreign policy is controlled by the Russians. I am not commenting on whether or not this is a rational goal, nor suggesting that it is only the Russians engaging in subversive actions in the Ukraine. I am merely stating the Russian goals and outlining what they are doing to achieve said goals.
For despite the rhetoric that emanates out of the Kremlin is is clear that the Russians support the Russian separatists and will continue to do so as a means of applying pressure on the Kiev government until they accept Russian demands.
Then I move to Iraq where the trail is somewhat murkier but there too the Saudis, who are still fighting a war of succession over who is in charge of the world's Muslims which started almost 1400 years ago, are stirring it up to try and maintain their grip on the Middle East.
Now I know the US does it as well and so it is unfair of me to highlight these two luminaries, but the US has been the villain of choice for ever so I don't feel obligated to drag them into this discussion, especially because recently, for better or for worse they have put their mouth where their money is and sent US troops to try and impose their geopolitical vision as opposed to the current paradigm of surrogates doing a country's dirty work.
I am appalled by the way they all, but recently especially the Russians and the Saudis take the old adage that war is just the continuation of politics by other means, and apply it so literally.
The two most obvious candidates are the Russians and the Saudi Arabians.
The Russian goal is to insure that the Ukraine at the worst is a neutral country whose foreign policy is controlled by the Russians. I am not commenting on whether or not this is a rational goal, nor suggesting that it is only the Russians engaging in subversive actions in the Ukraine. I am merely stating the Russian goals and outlining what they are doing to achieve said goals.
For despite the rhetoric that emanates out of the Kremlin is is clear that the Russians support the Russian separatists and will continue to do so as a means of applying pressure on the Kiev government until they accept Russian demands.
Then I move to Iraq where the trail is somewhat murkier but there too the Saudis, who are still fighting a war of succession over who is in charge of the world's Muslims which started almost 1400 years ago, are stirring it up to try and maintain their grip on the Middle East.
Now I know the US does it as well and so it is unfair of me to highlight these two luminaries, but the US has been the villain of choice for ever so I don't feel obligated to drag them into this discussion, especially because recently, for better or for worse they have put their mouth where their money is and sent US troops to try and impose their geopolitical vision as opposed to the current paradigm of surrogates doing a country's dirty work.
I am appalled by the way they all, but recently especially the Russians and the Saudis take the old adage that war is just the continuation of politics by other means, and apply it so literally.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
From the Outside Looking In
I was recently in Berlin and visited the Historisches Museum (History Museum) with an American friend. Given that we are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War you can imagine that just as there is a significant amount of discussion/books/programs on the subject in the UK that there is a similar level of activity in Germany.
Part of the drive to go to the museum is that there is an interactive map of Europe there showing the ebb and flow of empires across the Eurasian continent from basically the year zero to the present. If for no other reason I would recommend the museum.
But part of the agreement to go to the museum was that we would stop at 1914 so as not to have to get involved with the calamities of the 20th century, and under that aspect I would also highly recommend it.
It is an excellent museum which mixes military, imperial, economic, social and cultural history in its presentation of the development of Germany.
As we were leaving my American friend turned to me and mentioned casually how interesting it was to see German history from a German perspective.
At first I just nodded as we walked down the street towards the Brandenburger Tor to be suddenly overwhelmed by the sweet, powerful smell spilling out of Unter den Linden (Tilis cordata or small leaved Lime Tree for the non German readers).
Then it hit me.
These trees were first planted in 1647; the Brandenburger Tor was built in 1791 replacing a gate in the city wall with a monument to victory, and to peace. This place, this object, is a living archive.
For anyone who lived through or was born after the Second World War German history is tainted. Whether stated explicitly or implicitly the crimes of the National Socialists cast a pall across the breadth of German history, certainly from a non-German perspective.
But the history from the year zero to 1914 can't be painted with the knowledge of 1933-1945.
And in the Historisches Museum it isn't.
There can be no guilt for the future in the past as I have postulated it. Of course post 1933 into the present there will always be the question- 'what did I/what did my parents, my grandparents do?'
But that is not the lens through which the exhibition was built.
As a schoolboy I went to English grammar school where we studied the American Revolutionary War from the British point of view.
I had to go home and check my dates to ensure that we were actually talking about the same war.
History is written by the victors. But if the defeated are not annihilated then they too will write their history, and we should never lose sight of the fact that the descendants of the victors, and of the vanquished, are a matter of birth, not choice.
Part of the drive to go to the museum is that there is an interactive map of Europe there showing the ebb and flow of empires across the Eurasian continent from basically the year zero to the present. If for no other reason I would recommend the museum.
But part of the agreement to go to the museum was that we would stop at 1914 so as not to have to get involved with the calamities of the 20th century, and under that aspect I would also highly recommend it.
It is an excellent museum which mixes military, imperial, economic, social and cultural history in its presentation of the development of Germany.
As we were leaving my American friend turned to me and mentioned casually how interesting it was to see German history from a German perspective.
At first I just nodded as we walked down the street towards the Brandenburger Tor to be suddenly overwhelmed by the sweet, powerful smell spilling out of Unter den Linden (Tilis cordata or small leaved Lime Tree for the non German readers).
Then it hit me.
These trees were first planted in 1647; the Brandenburger Tor was built in 1791 replacing a gate in the city wall with a monument to victory, and to peace. This place, this object, is a living archive.
For anyone who lived through or was born after the Second World War German history is tainted. Whether stated explicitly or implicitly the crimes of the National Socialists cast a pall across the breadth of German history, certainly from a non-German perspective.
But the history from the year zero to 1914 can't be painted with the knowledge of 1933-1945.
And in the Historisches Museum it isn't.
There can be no guilt for the future in the past as I have postulated it. Of course post 1933 into the present there will always be the question- 'what did I/what did my parents, my grandparents do?'
But that is not the lens through which the exhibition was built.
As a schoolboy I went to English grammar school where we studied the American Revolutionary War from the British point of view.
I had to go home and check my dates to ensure that we were actually talking about the same war.
History is written by the victors. But if the defeated are not annihilated then they too will write their history, and we should never lose sight of the fact that the descendants of the victors, and of the vanquished, are a matter of birth, not choice.
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
The Longitude Prize of 2014- Addressing the Elephant in the Room
The initial Longitude Prize was over 300 years ago and was a competition which offered £20,000 to anyone who could devise a method to accurately determine a ship's position at sea. Knowing where you were and additionally knowing what time it was were two extremely important bits of information to help you circumnavigate the globe.
Now, 300 years later, again with the Astronomer Royal on the committee, the Longitude Prize is being offered, somehow in conjunction with Amazon, and this time the committee is putting the question as to what the subject should be to popular vote-if you are connected to Amazon or so it would seem.
But Amazon is not my focus today.
The public has been asked to pick between 6 offerings as to what the £20 million prize money question should be. They are:
Antibiotics
Antibiotics have changed the face of health care for the better; they on average add 20 years to our lives. 80 years on from the discovery of penicillin, we are still unable to distinguish bacterial from viral infections, or the type of bacteria in the clinic, which has caused the overuse of antibiotics and the evolution of multidrug-resistant strains of bacteria. We need a cheap, rapid and accurate point of care test kit that allows doctors to accurately prescribe antibiotics at the right time.
Flight
The rapid growth of carbon emissions caused by air travel needs to be addressed to help tackle climate change. The potential of zero-carbon flight has been demonstrated but it has had little impact on the carbon footprint of the aviation industry, which still relies exclusively on fossil fuels. We need to bring novel technologies into the mainstream to stimulate a significant change.
Paralysis
Paralysis can emerge from a number of different injuries, conditions and disorders and the effects can be devastating. Every day can be a challenge when mobility, bowel control, sexual function and respiration are lost or impaired. We need to find a way to vastly increase the freedom of movement for people with paralysis and address some of the secondary symptoms to make life easier.
Dementia
An ageing population means more people are developing dementia and unfortunately there is currently no existing cure. This means there is a need to find ways to support a person's dignity, physical and emotional well being and extend their ability to live independently.
Water
Water is a finite resource and we must seek to find ways of producing more fresh water. Some 98 per cent of the Earth's water is too salty for drinking or agriculture and as water requirements grow and as our reserves shrink, many are turning to desalination. We require a scalable solution that demonstrates low carbon, sustainable production of water for drinking or agriculture from seawater helping bring new technology to fruition.
Food
The world's population is growing, getting richer and moving to cities. Current estimates suggest that by 2050 there will be about nine billion people on the planet; moreover our tastes will have turned to more resource-hungry foods such as meat and milk. In the face of limited resources and climate change, we must learn how to feed the world better, but more sustainably...
Of the six choices, four are designed to ensure that we can continue to increase our global population exponentially. Two are looking for ways to make the lives of some parts of the current population better.
The four: Antibiotics; Flight; Water and Food are all important, but let's take a look at them.
Starting with Flight. I too am guilty of flying as a means of transportation and although I prefer trains I confess to flying because it is easier although it is certainly not the green choice. In a previous post I wrote about the sliver of atmosphere which is all that is between us and the vast void of outer space.
I haven't changed my opinion, and certainly any and every thing we can do to help protect the atmosphere we must do. But the carbon neutral programs are essentially scams which help to salve "green" consciences, but the truth is there are far too many flights taken. This is a as a result of the wealthy who fly halfway around the world for a weekend, and the rest of the flying public who have been seduced by the abundance of cheap flights to cheap locations, all of which comes at a severe cost to the atmosphere.
Following on with Food. Malthus was like an economist who can't tell you when the next recession will be but knows that one is coming. His prediction of a global famine keeps getting pushed back, but at some point we will reach the tipping point at which time all the sustainable food sources will also be pushed to the limit and the famine will hit. Recognising that sooner or later we will be unable to feed the total population means that we also need to look at population growth.
Water comes next. Although it is not often thought of or discussed as part of the atmosphere in these types of discussions it is only logical to recognise that the planet's water and the planet's atmosphere are essentially two states of the same substance and so just as we have been treating our atmosphere extremely poorly we have also been treating our water with the same disdain. Providing water to an ever growing population is a laudable undertaking, but the solution has to include looking at population growth.
Then we move to antibiotics. The goal as discussed in the option description is to be able to use antibiotics more effectively. There is no question that there is a massive over-prescription of antibiotics for a myriad of reasons, one of which is assuredly the inability to distinguish between viral and bacterial infections. Solving this problem; decreasing the improper use of antibiotics is surely a desirable goal. But it is a sideshow. If we can talk seriously about medical solutions to health issues we should also be able to have an intelligent discussion about population control.
I won't pontificate on Paralysis and Dementia. The former is like unemployment: it primarily effects the paralysed person. The latter is more like inflation: it effects almost all of us either directly or indirectly through our friends and relatives.
Obviously both of them are admirable. Of course medical advancement to help re-mobilise the paralysed would be great and anything that combats or defeats the scourge of dementia would be a wonderful thing.
But these are tactical strikes.
Strategically we need a plan to manage the global population.
A solution to that Gordian Knot which begins by breaking the taboo of population control has to be worth £20 million.
Now, 300 years later, again with the Astronomer Royal on the committee, the Longitude Prize is being offered, somehow in conjunction with Amazon, and this time the committee is putting the question as to what the subject should be to popular vote-if you are connected to Amazon or so it would seem.
But Amazon is not my focus today.
The public has been asked to pick between 6 offerings as to what the £20 million prize money question should be. They are:
Antibiotics
Antibiotics have changed the face of health care for the better; they on average add 20 years to our lives. 80 years on from the discovery of penicillin, we are still unable to distinguish bacterial from viral infections, or the type of bacteria in the clinic, which has caused the overuse of antibiotics and the evolution of multidrug-resistant strains of bacteria. We need a cheap, rapid and accurate point of care test kit that allows doctors to accurately prescribe antibiotics at the right time.
Flight
The rapid growth of carbon emissions caused by air travel needs to be addressed to help tackle climate change. The potential of zero-carbon flight has been demonstrated but it has had little impact on the carbon footprint of the aviation industry, which still relies exclusively on fossil fuels. We need to bring novel technologies into the mainstream to stimulate a significant change.
Paralysis
Paralysis can emerge from a number of different injuries, conditions and disorders and the effects can be devastating. Every day can be a challenge when mobility, bowel control, sexual function and respiration are lost or impaired. We need to find a way to vastly increase the freedom of movement for people with paralysis and address some of the secondary symptoms to make life easier.
Dementia
An ageing population means more people are developing dementia and unfortunately there is currently no existing cure. This means there is a need to find ways to support a person's dignity, physical and emotional well being and extend their ability to live independently.
Water
Water is a finite resource and we must seek to find ways of producing more fresh water. Some 98 per cent of the Earth's water is too salty for drinking or agriculture and as water requirements grow and as our reserves shrink, many are turning to desalination. We require a scalable solution that demonstrates low carbon, sustainable production of water for drinking or agriculture from seawater helping bring new technology to fruition.
Food
The world's population is growing, getting richer and moving to cities. Current estimates suggest that by 2050 there will be about nine billion people on the planet; moreover our tastes will have turned to more resource-hungry foods such as meat and milk. In the face of limited resources and climate change, we must learn how to feed the world better, but more sustainably...
Of the six choices, four are designed to ensure that we can continue to increase our global population exponentially. Two are looking for ways to make the lives of some parts of the current population better.
The four: Antibiotics; Flight; Water and Food are all important, but let's take a look at them.
Starting with Flight. I too am guilty of flying as a means of transportation and although I prefer trains I confess to flying because it is easier although it is certainly not the green choice. In a previous post I wrote about the sliver of atmosphere which is all that is between us and the vast void of outer space.
I haven't changed my opinion, and certainly any and every thing we can do to help protect the atmosphere we must do. But the carbon neutral programs are essentially scams which help to salve "green" consciences, but the truth is there are far too many flights taken. This is a as a result of the wealthy who fly halfway around the world for a weekend, and the rest of the flying public who have been seduced by the abundance of cheap flights to cheap locations, all of which comes at a severe cost to the atmosphere.
Following on with Food. Malthus was like an economist who can't tell you when the next recession will be but knows that one is coming. His prediction of a global famine keeps getting pushed back, but at some point we will reach the tipping point at which time all the sustainable food sources will also be pushed to the limit and the famine will hit. Recognising that sooner or later we will be unable to feed the total population means that we also need to look at population growth.
Water comes next. Although it is not often thought of or discussed as part of the atmosphere in these types of discussions it is only logical to recognise that the planet's water and the planet's atmosphere are essentially two states of the same substance and so just as we have been treating our atmosphere extremely poorly we have also been treating our water with the same disdain. Providing water to an ever growing population is a laudable undertaking, but the solution has to include looking at population growth.
Then we move to antibiotics. The goal as discussed in the option description is to be able to use antibiotics more effectively. There is no question that there is a massive over-prescription of antibiotics for a myriad of reasons, one of which is assuredly the inability to distinguish between viral and bacterial infections. Solving this problem; decreasing the improper use of antibiotics is surely a desirable goal. But it is a sideshow. If we can talk seriously about medical solutions to health issues we should also be able to have an intelligent discussion about population control.
I won't pontificate on Paralysis and Dementia. The former is like unemployment: it primarily effects the paralysed person. The latter is more like inflation: it effects almost all of us either directly or indirectly through our friends and relatives.
Obviously both of them are admirable. Of course medical advancement to help re-mobilise the paralysed would be great and anything that combats or defeats the scourge of dementia would be a wonderful thing.
But these are tactical strikes.
Strategically we need a plan to manage the global population.
A solution to that Gordian Knot which begins by breaking the taboo of population control has to be worth £20 million.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)