I have a mathematical model that I break out every so often in support of geopolitical analysis or forecasting of various and sundry types. Usually I use it to match up countries and predict which ones would, oh, get in wars, and with whom, and how the likely alliances would play out.
However, it occurred to me that the same data engine could be used to start discussion on the interrelated and often-competing nature of major, global public policy goals. It is not just that the problems are big, dynamic and complex; they fit together in even bigger, more dynamic and more complex ways.
Here's what I am going to give you today:
- A quick bibliography of past diaries drawing on this methodology
- The variables involves
- Apply to the first puzzle on the list: the ecological rehabilitation of the planet Earth
- Parting thoughts, invitation for contest of will, maybe a little mojo...
And away we go!
What you are about to see...
Is a series of very generic global policy precriptions, driven exclusively by a set of data that I have assembled over the course of 15 years that I use for the primary purpose of generating backstory for a science fiction novel that I am writing.
It just happens to be a resource that has not only produce a viable investment model that I continue to work with successfully but a host of Dailykos diaries, some of which have been well-received. The ones that are most explicitly connected to this approach are:
Water Scarcity and Warfare
The Greater Middle East: The War Is Coming In Earnest Now
The World in 2100
The World in 2200
The World in 2300
The World in 2400
A few others, where the discussion is backed by this methodology, include:
US Middle East Allies Bailing, Big Time
Emerging Showdown in Central Asia
A Week Ago, The Cedar Revolution Was Righteous
Egypt Persuaded Israel From Ground Attack in Lebanon
Dien Bien Baghdad
US Accuses Saudi Arabia of Destabilizing Iraq, Offers $20 Billion to Help
Turkey to US, Iraq: Deal With the Kurds or We Will
Toward A Post-Petroleum Economy
The Basics
I'm going to take data estimated for the year 2010 from the following 12 categories and correlate it, and use it to infer general approach guidelines for obtaining a set of 11 global policy goals, one for each category. The data used is by political unit and, yes, I suppose I could have done a pooled time series, so you let me know when my grant comes through...we're just making a first pass, here, to get some discuss, firm up some obvious weaknesses through peer review a la DKOS comments, and refine the target questions.
Carry Capacity - Metric: Available fresh water supply. This is in terms of human beings that can be supported on a long-term basic given local water supples.
Overall Power Rating - Aggregate Index of relative power based on scores for population, natural resources, level of technology available from local production, level of infrastructural development and level of education.
Population - number of inhabitants
Land Value - mostly, a log of the land area, with modifiers for countries with especially compelling mineralogical or strategic endowments (ie, good location)
Tech Level - most countries in the current era score between 20 and 30, the Japan, France and the USA are the majors by this approach, though some smaller states have niche advantages.
Infrastructure 0 to 10, 10 being all useful land is saturated with all available gear that the country's current tech level can support. Island or micro states tend to be very highly developed.
Education - A 10 means that everyone who wants and can handle a given level of education has been taken there; the Scandinavian countries dominate the list. The USA as of this era scores close to a 7.
Aggression Factor - This is not invariably tied to violence, but reflects the presence or absence of a restive nature. Your call; the most aggressive areas by this method are Western Sahara, Nigeria, India, Iraq and Rwanda. The most passive by the same scoring are Greenland, Iceland, Suriname, Guyana and Gabon (with Norway, New Zealand and Canada not far behind). And, yes, I know Canadians are not that nice...
Military Rating - The overall power rating x the Aggression Factor, how much of intentions and capacities are diverted to war and preparations to fight hypothetical wars.
GDP (PPP basis) Estimate - This is Gross Domestic Product based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
Nuke - Whether country does/does not possess nuclear weapons. It's a short list and almost all countries are well-off.
WarRisk - The primary purpose of this entire database is to assess risk of war, by drawing on all the other elements in a Correlates of War (COW)-style exercise (props to David Singer and the peeps at the University of Michigan for all their work). I'd hazard I have some good picks, myself, as my top five are Gaza Strip, Iraq, Burundi, Yemen and Somalia (Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya and Afghanistan are major theaters you might want to keep an eye on, too). Outside of a number of lovely islands, I would advise Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland for your peace sanctuary getaway.
So now you know what we're working with.
Building on the Correlations from above...
...I came up with some thoughts on how to do things like, oh,
- Improving Environmental Quality
- Increase Overall Power Relative to Other States
- Stabilize or Reduce Population
- Promote Scientific Progress
- Promote Development
- Improve Education
- Promote Civic Culture
- Increase Military Strength
- Improve Gross Domestic Product
- Promote Nuclear Non-Proliferation
- Reduce Likelihood of War
Improving Environmental Quality
Short form: It really is about changing attitudes.
The numbers to the left are the correlation coefficients with the variable "Carrying Capacity"; my cutoff point is 0.2000 but I am cutting myself a little slack to include population control.
0.6674 Promote rational as opposed to impulsive behavior in persons and societies; from that, all else follows. Impulsive aggressive individuals are highly unreceptive to the notions of self-restraint and noncompensatory values that reviving the ecosphere requires. Related to this is the need to reduce the level of aggression in society, especially with regards to territoriality and perceptions of entitlement to exclusive use, a greater awareness of public goods and inculcation of a set of norms, a moral code that supercedes contemporary notions of propriety and property.
Perhaps you can attempt to promote 'green' without conceding to the notion of public values and private costs to uphold same, but you are handicapping the effort greatly. There is a reason why persons who 'get' green often seem to be talking a different language -- they are. And if you are interested in improving the quality of air, water and life itself in all its forms, you at least need to be conversant in the language. If not, you are not participating in the conversation that is missing you.
0.4403 There also needs to be an emphasis on an economics of sufficiency -- eating, drinking, using what you need rather than what you can -- Partipation in demonstrations of wealth or gestures of consumption in entertainment or travel should be mitigated; more ascetic greens would advocate truly austere protocols sucha s never flying or riding in a personal ground transport unless it is a bicycle. And if you can do so, by all means. The point is not to out-austere everyone, but to use what you need, not what you can.
0.3383 Reduce the developmental footprint; disperse infrastructure, to leave green and open spaces. Again, part of the use what you need, not what you can mantra.
0.2910 Reduce warfare, promote institutions, channels and norms of peaceful conflict resolution. War takes a huge toll on life and habitat, always, magnitudes worse that peaceful human occupancy. Any strategy towqrd ecological rehabilitation must include a component for peaceful mangement of human disputes.
(0.2633) Reduce land use; expand wilderness or preserve areas. This is not just giving away to nature or an aesthetic; this is about investing in the ability of the ecosphere to give human civilization the time to undo its own damage -- this is about buying time for Humanity to life, to have not only water and food but perhaps air itself. Think about it; that next parking lot could be your last.
(0.1958) Improve investment in technology and scientific expertise with an eye toward innovations to reduce ecological footprint, break down waste products, replace poisons and reduce energy and raw materials consumption. Science is not bad; science has taught us (a) what the problem is and (b) offered many tools to use to solve them. Simply put, in my opinion I do not think we can simply primitivize ourselves back to ecological well-being; the damage is too great. We need to bring out A game, and enable the A game of the future to survive...rather, for the Earth as a living home to do so.
0.1801 Reduce defense spending by aiming for sufficiency for domestic defense, not preparedness for military adventures abroad. Dovetailed with an advocacy for civil society at home and peacemaking institutions and norms abroad, a salutary cycle of greater peace, expectations of peaceful conduct and real reduction in defense expenditures should occur. jargon updated, props to Magnifico :)
0.0985 Reduce population or mitigate growth of same. There are simply too many people; at some point a gradual decline in human population on Earth will have to be managed, and the mortgage on the environment for supporting so many extra inhabitants paid over time. This is not a call for a mega-scale suicide pact, that's just crazy talk. What we need to do is recognition, rationally, knowledgeably and peaceably, that we cannot childbirth out way out of overpopulation.
Thoughts
Okay...this is probably the 'greeniest' thing I have ever written and believe you me, if it wasn't the mathematics informing this narrative I would not have written a word of it. Sorry, guys. Not onboard with the green program...
...but I might be opening up to some education.
The floor is all yours; I have to depart DKOS for a while...