O grande lance de Obama ao estender a mão
José Miguel Vivanco*, THE WASHINGTON POST
O presidente dos EUA, Barack Obama, foi muito criticado por ter se dirigido ao presidente venezuelano, Hugo Chávez, durante a Cúpula das Américas. Os críticos dizem que Obama errou por ser amistoso com um líder estrangeiro famoso pelas piadas contra os EUA.
Como sou um defensor dos direitos humanos que documentou as políticas autoritárias de Chávez e sofreu as consequências nas mãos de suas forças de segurança, era de se esperar que eu aprovasse essas críticas. Mas acho que o tempo pode mostrar que Obama agiu certo.
O gesto de Obama tornou mais difícil para Chávez usar sua disputa pessoal com o governo dos EUA para desviar a atenção de seus problemas internos. E vai tornar mais fácil para Obama continuar com seus esforços para pressionar o governo venezuelano a mudar seus métodos autoritários.
A Venezuela é um país complicado. Possui partidos políticos independentes, eleições competitivas, imprensa, sindicatos e organizações civis. Embora o país tenha problemas crônicos de direitos humanos, não há uma rejeição das liberdades fundamentais como em Cuba. Nem um conflito armado com uma violência generalizada por parte de grupos ilegais como na Colômbia.
Mas Chávez vem minando as instituições democráticas, essenciais para a salvaguarda do Estado de Direito. Ele fortaleceu o poder do Estado para reprimir a liberdade de imprensa e abusa de seu poder regulador para ameaçar e punir a imprensa que critica seu governo.
Chávez tem violado o direito dos trabalhadores de se reunir em sindicatos e sabotado o trabalho dos defensores dos direitos humanos. Talvez mais preocupante seja o fato de o governo ter neutralizado completamente o Poder Judiciário. O desrespeito pela independência judiciária aumenta o temor de que a recente onda de acusações de corrupção contra opositores seja uma campanha de perseguição política orquestrada pelo governo. Embora a corrupção seja objeto de ações judiciais, é preciso que haja um Judiciário independente para que esses processos sejam confiáveis.
Para desviar as críticas de sua política autoritária, Chávez usa uma tática defendida por seu mentor, Fidel Castro, que é acusar os defensores dos direitos humanos de conspirar com os EUA para derrubar seu governo. Quando a ONG venezuelana Provea divulgou seu relatório anual sobre direitos humanos, em dezembro, o ministro da Justiça e Interior de Chávez declarou que os funcionários da instituição eram "mentirosos" e "pagos em dólares".
No meu caso, depois que a Human Rights Watch divulgou seu relatório em Caracas, no ano passado, um colega e eu fomos detidos pelas forças de segurança de Chávez e expulsos do país. Como justificaram esse abuso de poder? Alegando que violamos as condições de nosso visto e estávamos conspirando com o Departamento de Estado americano.
Essas absurdas alegações encontram eco em alguns setores da sociedade venezuelana porque o governo dos EUA tem uma longa e sórdida história de conspirar para derrubar governos democráticos na América Latina. E quando os opositores de Chávez quiseram destituí-lo num golpe de Estado em 2002, o governo Bush acolheu com agrado a tentativa, em vez de condená-la, como fizeram os governos democráticos da região.
Esse grave erro prejudicou a credibilidade de Bush no campo dos direitos humanos e da democracia. Isso facilitou para que Chávez inserisse o debate sobre suas políticas como sendo uma parte de sua briga pessoal e política com Bush. Obama deu um passo importante para acabar com essa dinâmica ao estender a mão para Chávez.
Claro que um aperto de mão não vai solucionar os problemas dos direitos humanos na Venezuela, mas vale a pena reduzir a tensão entre Washington e Caracas porque isso cria uma oportunidade de concentrar a atenção da região para o que ocorre no país.
Nos próximos meses, Obama precisa aproveitar a oportunidade e expressar sua preocupação com as políticas de Chávez que estão corroendo a independência das instituições democráticas venezuelanas. Os EUA precisam também trabalhar com aliados regionais para estabelecer um fórum multilateral apropriado para envolver a Venezuela nesse tema.
Os gestos simbólicos de Obama foram essenciais na preparação do terreno para um envolvimento positivo. Se seu governo seguir com essa política, da próxima vez que Chávez reclamar de uma conspiração americana, poucas pessoas o levarão a sério.
*José Miguel Vivanco, diretor do Human Rights Watch, foi expulso da Venezuela em 2008
sábado, mayo 09, 2009
viernes, mayo 08, 2009
El BLOG de MIguel Angel Santos
Este BLog del profesor del IESA es interesante para mantnerse informado de los asuntos economicos y financieros de Venezuela.
martes, mayo 05, 2009
Apple and Twitter
Facebook tried to buy Twitter. Google and Microsoft have been giving the red-hot Internet-messaging startup the eye. But we hear it's Apple that's closest to sealing a deal, possibly for as much as $700 million.
A source who's plugged into the Valley's deal scene and has been recruited by Apple for a senior position says Apple and Twitter are in serious negotiations, with the goal of unveiling a deal by June 8, when Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference launches in San Jose.
Twitter turned down a $500 million offer in cash and stock from Facebook, in part because Twitter's investors couldn't agree on whether Facebook's stock was worth as much as Facebook said it was. But Apple could easily pay cash. A source familiar with the thinking of Twitter's board says the company would be hard-pressed to refuse an all-cash offer in the range of $700 million. (Is Twitter really worth that? Since it's business is nothing but a fantasy at this point, any valuation, high or low, is a matter of make-believe.)
What does Twitter, an adorable but unprofitable startup, have to do with a hardware company like Apple? The iPhone is the obvious driver of the deal: The many iPhone apps like Tweetie that people use to post Twitter messages are hot sellers for Apple. But Apple gets the benefit of Twitter-addicted iPhone users whether or not it owns Twitter. And it seems like an odd cultural fit, since Apple's hardly known for its Web prowess.
That's where the deal makes a certain amount of sense, if you understand the particular culture of those who work on the Web. While Apple might have its pick of hardware designers and software engineers, Web developers are a breed apart — and they have balked at working at a company like Apple, which may look innovative to the world at large, but seems fusty and hidebound to the Mission hipsters who build websites. You'll hear the complaints: Apple's secretive and paranoid, resistant to the wide-open ways of the Web.
Twitter , of course, is open in both nature and spirit. Users overshare every last detail of their lives, while Twitter makes these updates available on its website, via RSS, and through third-party applications. Apple is surely realizing it needs to play in this world, and needs someone to show it the way. Is it coincidence that Apple has put Twitter executives on stage so frequently, or that it profiled Twitter as a "business" recently?
If Apple buys Twitter, it won't be about making money. It will be about making a statement. In 140 characters or less.
A source who's plugged into the Valley's deal scene and has been recruited by Apple for a senior position says Apple and Twitter are in serious negotiations, with the goal of unveiling a deal by June 8, when Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference launches in San Jose.
Twitter turned down a $500 million offer in cash and stock from Facebook, in part because Twitter's investors couldn't agree on whether Facebook's stock was worth as much as Facebook said it was. But Apple could easily pay cash. A source familiar with the thinking of Twitter's board says the company would be hard-pressed to refuse an all-cash offer in the range of $700 million. (Is Twitter really worth that? Since it's business is nothing but a fantasy at this point, any valuation, high or low, is a matter of make-believe.)
What does Twitter, an adorable but unprofitable startup, have to do with a hardware company like Apple? The iPhone is the obvious driver of the deal: The many iPhone apps like Tweetie that people use to post Twitter messages are hot sellers for Apple. But Apple gets the benefit of Twitter-addicted iPhone users whether or not it owns Twitter. And it seems like an odd cultural fit, since Apple's hardly known for its Web prowess.
That's where the deal makes a certain amount of sense, if you understand the particular culture of those who work on the Web. While Apple might have its pick of hardware designers and software engineers, Web developers are a breed apart — and they have balked at working at a company like Apple, which may look innovative to the world at large, but seems fusty and hidebound to the Mission hipsters who build websites. You'll hear the complaints: Apple's secretive and paranoid, resistant to the wide-open ways of the Web.
Twitter , of course, is open in both nature and spirit. Users overshare every last detail of their lives, while Twitter makes these updates available on its website, via RSS, and through third-party applications. Apple is surely realizing it needs to play in this world, and needs someone to show it the way. Is it coincidence that Apple has put Twitter executives on stage so frequently, or that it profiled Twitter as a "business" recently?
If Apple buys Twitter, it won't be about making money. It will be about making a statement. In 140 characters or less.
Romance: Chaves's daughter and Salvador Allende's grandson
Romance between Chavez's daughter and grandson of a famous Salvador Allende
She is the daughter of political Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, he is a doctor, a grandson of the deposed Chilean socialist president Salvador Allende. Descendants of symbolic families of the Latin American left, star in the romance of fashion in Chile and Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez was himself who launched the news on Sunday at his weekly program 'Alo Presidente' revealed that his daughter Maria Gabriela, 29 years, was the "companion" of Allende Pablo Sepulveda, 32, grandson of a political figure most admired by him.
"Pablo, Chilean physician, companion of Mary, and grandson of Salvador Allende," said Chavez in the program, where a tour of a production of drugs in Caracas.
The media in Chile show that the Chavez introduced the couple last November at the opening of the "Feria del Libro de Caracas" dedicated precisely to the work of Salvador Allende, to which Paul attended with one of his cousins.
Chavez learned of the presence of the grandson of Allende would have officiated by Cupid, deliberately sitting together in a ceremony that gave scholarships, according to the press in Santiago.
Beyond the crush was immediate. So much so that Maria Gabriela came to look for him in January to bring Chile to live in Venezuela.
Today, both live in Caracas. She conducts the first lady, while he continues to act as a medical clinic that bears the name of his grandfather.
The disclosure of the romance, however, fell to the wrong family Allende, who preferred to remain outside of the media.
"I will not say, nor will my sister Carmen Paz. It is absolutely a private matter for the family," said Congresswoman Isabel Allende.
"It's his life. "Maravilloso" has been in love. If Chavez came to speak, is a matter for him," he added.
Paul is the son of Carmen Paz Allende, the second of three daughters of Salvador Allende. Has dual Chilean and Mexican citizenship, where all his family went into exile after the military coup of September 11, 1973.
That day, amid the military uprising that included land and air bombardment of the presidential palace, Salvador Allende chose to commit suicide before handing over power to General Augusto Pinochet, a courageous gesture that often highlight Chavez, who calls it 'president martyr '.
Physician and his grandfather, Paul is also the grandson who most resembles him politically. He studied medicine in Cuba and is a strong supporter of the socialist project in Chile which left unfinished.
Until January he was in a public medical center in the city of Coquimbo, northern Chile, where he was remembered as a doctor "sensible" that he felt "frustration" because he could not attend as he loved his poor patients.
She is the daughter of political Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, he is a doctor, a grandson of the deposed Chilean socialist president Salvador Allende. Descendants of symbolic families of the Latin American left, star in the romance of fashion in Chile and Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez was himself who launched the news on Sunday at his weekly program 'Alo Presidente' revealed that his daughter Maria Gabriela, 29 years, was the "companion" of Allende Pablo Sepulveda, 32, grandson of a political figure most admired by him.
"Pablo, Chilean physician, companion of Mary, and grandson of Salvador Allende," said Chavez in the program, where a tour of a production of drugs in Caracas.
The media in Chile show that the Chavez introduced the couple last November at the opening of the "Feria del Libro de Caracas" dedicated precisely to the work of Salvador Allende, to which Paul attended with one of his cousins.
Chavez learned of the presence of the grandson of Allende would have officiated by Cupid, deliberately sitting together in a ceremony that gave scholarships, according to the press in Santiago.
Beyond the crush was immediate. So much so that Maria Gabriela came to look for him in January to bring Chile to live in Venezuela.
Today, both live in Caracas. She conducts the first lady, while he continues to act as a medical clinic that bears the name of his grandfather.
The disclosure of the romance, however, fell to the wrong family Allende, who preferred to remain outside of the media.
"I will not say, nor will my sister Carmen Paz. It is absolutely a private matter for the family," said Congresswoman Isabel Allende.
"It's his life. "Maravilloso" has been in love. If Chavez came to speak, is a matter for him," he added.
Paul is the son of Carmen Paz Allende, the second of three daughters of Salvador Allende. Has dual Chilean and Mexican citizenship, where all his family went into exile after the military coup of September 11, 1973.
That day, amid the military uprising that included land and air bombardment of the presidential palace, Salvador Allende chose to commit suicide before handing over power to General Augusto Pinochet, a courageous gesture that often highlight Chavez, who calls it 'president martyr '.
Physician and his grandfather, Paul is also the grandson who most resembles him politically. He studied medicine in Cuba and is a strong supporter of the socialist project in Chile which left unfinished.
Until January he was in a public medical center in the city of Coquimbo, northern Chile, where he was remembered as a doctor "sensible" that he felt "frustration" because he could not attend as he loved his poor patients.
Tech expert: Twitter is fun but overhyped
Q&A
Tech expert: Twitter is fun but ‘overhyped’
By PURVA PATEL
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Jason Pontin, of Technology Review, says it’s hard to find venture funding.
Jason Pontin, editor and publisher of MIT Technology Review, was in Houston recently to talk about emerging technologies. The magazine has published its list of top 10 emerging technologies for 2009.
Chronicle reporter Purva Patel talked to Pontin about the list and the state of technology amid the recession. Here is an excerpt from that conversation.
Q: Which of the new technologies you’re presenting could impact Houston soon?
A: I think alternative fuels, health care and nanotechnology trends are going to affect Houston the most. I was just at Shell and they were talking with great interest and excitement about their biofuels initiative. In terms of health care, the Obama administration has mandated $14 billion be spent on medical electronic records. That’s a huge amount of money. And technology and consulting firms here will be responsible for taking that money and turning it into usable products. Nanotechnology trends will have a broad impact across a variety of industries. I think it’s reasonable to expect Houston will be, with other areas, one of the alternative energy capitals for the U.S.
Q: What technologies didn’t make the list?
A: I believe the most overhyped technology in America right now is micro-blogging, like Twitter and status updates on Facebook. I know it’s popular and Oprah endorsed it on her show the other day. But what I look for in a technology is, is it really going to have a broad commercial impact? Does it have real market pull? It has to be solving an actual real problem, a pressing need in the world. The technology has to represent a breakthrough in some way. There has to be a real reinvestment over the years to create an elegant solution to whatever the problem was. And finally, it needs to be defensible because of technology patents or a long-term investment by one party that would make it hard for anyone to compete. If you look at Twitter, I don’t know how important a need it is to be able to post 140-word microblogs ... I think Twitter will survive as some part of a communication company and be bought by Google or Facebook.
Q: Wouldn’t some claim you’re just saying that because you’re a journalist?
A: I’m on Twitter. I think it’s a lot of fun. I just don’t understand how it’s a sustainable business. Twitter doesn’t release how many people are using it, but it’s somewhere between 10 million to 13 million. By contrast, Facebook has 200 million users, and it isn’t even profitable.
Q: What’s the state of tech startups during this recession?
A: This is not the dark night of the soul, but it is very challenging for many technology startups, at least for those who took venture funding. Venture capitalists expect their investments to outperform the market on an aggregate basis for every year of their investment, and they expect to see an exit strategy in the form of an IPO or an acquisition within two to seven years. At the moment companies aren’t buying because their cash reserves are low and because they don’t want to do stock swaps. ... In the absence of any exit strategies, venture capitalists are not investing in any new companies at all. The investments they are making are in their existing portfolio companies and they’re being very mean spirited about it.
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: They’re not putting much money in. They’re telling companies to “live off the money we’re giving you, cut your expenses way back and change many of your ambitions. And … we expect you to start creating revenues now.” That’s really difficult for companies that thought they had a long development cycle.
purva.patel@chron.com
Tech expert: Twitter is fun but ‘overhyped’
By PURVA PATEL
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Jason Pontin, of Technology Review, says it’s hard to find venture funding.
Jason Pontin, editor and publisher of MIT Technology Review, was in Houston recently to talk about emerging technologies. The magazine has published its list of top 10 emerging technologies for 2009.
Chronicle reporter Purva Patel talked to Pontin about the list and the state of technology amid the recession. Here is an excerpt from that conversation.
Q: Which of the new technologies you’re presenting could impact Houston soon?
A: I think alternative fuels, health care and nanotechnology trends are going to affect Houston the most. I was just at Shell and they were talking with great interest and excitement about their biofuels initiative. In terms of health care, the Obama administration has mandated $14 billion be spent on medical electronic records. That’s a huge amount of money. And technology and consulting firms here will be responsible for taking that money and turning it into usable products. Nanotechnology trends will have a broad impact across a variety of industries. I think it’s reasonable to expect Houston will be, with other areas, one of the alternative energy capitals for the U.S.
Q: What technologies didn’t make the list?
A: I believe the most overhyped technology in America right now is micro-blogging, like Twitter and status updates on Facebook. I know it’s popular and Oprah endorsed it on her show the other day. But what I look for in a technology is, is it really going to have a broad commercial impact? Does it have real market pull? It has to be solving an actual real problem, a pressing need in the world. The technology has to represent a breakthrough in some way. There has to be a real reinvestment over the years to create an elegant solution to whatever the problem was. And finally, it needs to be defensible because of technology patents or a long-term investment by one party that would make it hard for anyone to compete. If you look at Twitter, I don’t know how important a need it is to be able to post 140-word microblogs ... I think Twitter will survive as some part of a communication company and be bought by Google or Facebook.
Q: Wouldn’t some claim you’re just saying that because you’re a journalist?
A: I’m on Twitter. I think it’s a lot of fun. I just don’t understand how it’s a sustainable business. Twitter doesn’t release how many people are using it, but it’s somewhere between 10 million to 13 million. By contrast, Facebook has 200 million users, and it isn’t even profitable.
Q: What’s the state of tech startups during this recession?
A: This is not the dark night of the soul, but it is very challenging for many technology startups, at least for those who took venture funding. Venture capitalists expect their investments to outperform the market on an aggregate basis for every year of their investment, and they expect to see an exit strategy in the form of an IPO or an acquisition within two to seven years. At the moment companies aren’t buying because their cash reserves are low and because they don’t want to do stock swaps. ... In the absence of any exit strategies, venture capitalists are not investing in any new companies at all. The investments they are making are in their existing portfolio companies and they’re being very mean spirited about it.
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: They’re not putting much money in. They’re telling companies to “live off the money we’re giving you, cut your expenses way back and change many of your ambitions. And … we expect you to start creating revenues now.” That’s really difficult for companies that thought they had a long development cycle.
purva.patel@chron.com
lunes, mayo 04, 2009
domingo, mayo 03, 2009
Aporkalypse Now: What Happens When We're at Phase 6?
Aporkalypse Now: What Happens When We're at Phase 6?
You would have to put the entire population in quarantine. And you can't do that, can you?
Nicolas van der Leek (Nick)
Published 2009-05-01
It's a dilemma. You have to quarantine everyone, but you can't. You have to keep people in one place because where people go this virus is going to go. The problem is, if everyone goes home, how are ordinary things that we take for granted going to happen - news gathering, food in shops and restaurants, fuel for transport. All of that stuff freezes too.
Make no mistake, if there is a lock down, everything will shutdown (everything will run out) within a period of time so short most people will be horrified at how just-in-time are lives actually are. Capacity is threadbare as it is. There will be shortages of food and fuel, so if you hear a Phase 6 announcement you'll want to stock up (if there is anything left by the time you do this) on brown rice, bottled water, and a few hundred tins of canned beans. Fruit that takes a while to rot is also worth getting a-hold of: apples, oranges (whichever is in season) and perhaps avocados and pineapples. Buy pasta instead of bread. Stay away from refined foods and especially foods high in sugar. Get plenty or rest and enough sun (vitamin D) on your skin.
If you get sick, isolate yourself but seek medical help either by phone or on the Internet. Blog or twitter about the experience.
If we can count on people to keep their cool, it is possible to defeat this virus this time around by essentially waiting it out. That means, no one goes to work or school and while we may become uncomfortable and even hungry (living on rice and water a la survivor) the virus won't really go anywhere it isn't already and will burn itself out. These types of viruses mutate very quickly and in a few weeks they disappear. The next year they come back entirely different (which may or may not be a good thing).
So it's a possible strategy, but it's not much.
Can people be counted on not to lose their cool? Can they keep their growing fears at bay? Will people who are used to Monday Night Football, fast food and Convenience-on-tap go gently into the dark night when the power cuts start and water runs out? I doubt it. I see a lot of opportunity for trouble. Looting, unrest, the have-nots suspecting they have a chance to grab a few fistfuls of gold. If this gets out of hand it could affect the ability of the grid, of the whole system, to reboot once (if) the disease clears and the season passes.
I predict things will get a lot worse, whether this pandemic manifests as a s**t storm nightmare or not. Here's why:
- There's a Pandemic after this one that may be much worse. It's going to come back worse and worse because the ingredients for the pandemic [unhygienic farming and environmental setups that enhance their virulence (warming temperatures)] are increasing; the trend is worsening, far from improving.
So if we survive this pandemic there are certain to be successive waves that become more and more lethal. Probably we will develop a better and better capability to wipe them out, but a virus has the edge on humanity. It can change faster than we can track it, and it can render vaccines and medicines useless pretty quickly (a trend that has been happening for some time in medicine).
- Climate Change. No one believes in probably the most potent force happening out there. Climate Change on its own is going to spread and changes diseases. Thanks to Climate Change new diseases are being born and are spreading into entirely new areas. Things like malaria and West Nile Disease and Ebola. If you follow the news you hear about some killer sicknesses coming out, like Dengue Fever.
- Population Growth. The implications of our industrialised society are many. Pollution is one (impacting on Climate Change) but there are many others. Habitat destruction, genetically engineered plants and to some extent animals (it has already been theorised that experiments on human diabetics and animal tissue samples in a Mexican hospital could have stimulated this genetic recombination.
One of the most basic is that a huge population requires huge resources of energy. Food and fuel. Both of these are under tremendous strain at present. Food stocks (in terms of staple crops) are at very low levels. Oil is depleting at an alarming rate - especially in Mexico and Iraq which are supposed to have some of the world's super giant fields. But in terms of H1N1, large human populations have led to huge industrialised death camps for chickens, pigs and cows.
These animals are kept in unnatural conditions, warehouses, heavily overcrowded to the extent that the animals go mad and get sick. They are kept alive on growth hormones and antibiotics until they have grown big enough to be slaughtered. This Clockwork system artificial feeding - turning cows essentially into fish pellet eating carnivores, chickens into cannibals and pigs into bottom feeders.
Both of the above - population growth and climate change - aren't likely to even slow down any time soon. So the trends we're seeing (killer diseases that smart bomb the human immune system) are going to get better at wiping us out. This is the planet's safety defence mechanism. Because the real pandemic is us.
You would have to put the entire population in quarantine. And you can't do that, can you?
Nicolas van der Leek (Nick)
Published 2009-05-01
It's a dilemma. You have to quarantine everyone, but you can't. You have to keep people in one place because where people go this virus is going to go. The problem is, if everyone goes home, how are ordinary things that we take for granted going to happen - news gathering, food in shops and restaurants, fuel for transport. All of that stuff freezes too.
Make no mistake, if there is a lock down, everything will shutdown (everything will run out) within a period of time so short most people will be horrified at how just-in-time are lives actually are. Capacity is threadbare as it is. There will be shortages of food and fuel, so if you hear a Phase 6 announcement you'll want to stock up (if there is anything left by the time you do this) on brown rice, bottled water, and a few hundred tins of canned beans. Fruit that takes a while to rot is also worth getting a-hold of: apples, oranges (whichever is in season) and perhaps avocados and pineapples. Buy pasta instead of bread. Stay away from refined foods and especially foods high in sugar. Get plenty or rest and enough sun (vitamin D) on your skin.
If you get sick, isolate yourself but seek medical help either by phone or on the Internet. Blog or twitter about the experience.
If we can count on people to keep their cool, it is possible to defeat this virus this time around by essentially waiting it out. That means, no one goes to work or school and while we may become uncomfortable and even hungry (living on rice and water a la survivor) the virus won't really go anywhere it isn't already and will burn itself out. These types of viruses mutate very quickly and in a few weeks they disappear. The next year they come back entirely different (which may or may not be a good thing).
So it's a possible strategy, but it's not much.
Can people be counted on not to lose their cool? Can they keep their growing fears at bay? Will people who are used to Monday Night Football, fast food and Convenience-on-tap go gently into the dark night when the power cuts start and water runs out? I doubt it. I see a lot of opportunity for trouble. Looting, unrest, the have-nots suspecting they have a chance to grab a few fistfuls of gold. If this gets out of hand it could affect the ability of the grid, of the whole system, to reboot once (if) the disease clears and the season passes.
I predict things will get a lot worse, whether this pandemic manifests as a s**t storm nightmare or not. Here's why:
- There's a Pandemic after this one that may be much worse. It's going to come back worse and worse because the ingredients for the pandemic [unhygienic farming and environmental setups that enhance their virulence (warming temperatures)] are increasing; the trend is worsening, far from improving.
So if we survive this pandemic there are certain to be successive waves that become more and more lethal. Probably we will develop a better and better capability to wipe them out, but a virus has the edge on humanity. It can change faster than we can track it, and it can render vaccines and medicines useless pretty quickly (a trend that has been happening for some time in medicine).
- Climate Change. No one believes in probably the most potent force happening out there. Climate Change on its own is going to spread and changes diseases. Thanks to Climate Change new diseases are being born and are spreading into entirely new areas. Things like malaria and West Nile Disease and Ebola. If you follow the news you hear about some killer sicknesses coming out, like Dengue Fever.
- Population Growth. The implications of our industrialised society are many. Pollution is one (impacting on Climate Change) but there are many others. Habitat destruction, genetically engineered plants and to some extent animals (it has already been theorised that experiments on human diabetics and animal tissue samples in a Mexican hospital could have stimulated this genetic recombination.
One of the most basic is that a huge population requires huge resources of energy. Food and fuel. Both of these are under tremendous strain at present. Food stocks (in terms of staple crops) are at very low levels. Oil is depleting at an alarming rate - especially in Mexico and Iraq which are supposed to have some of the world's super giant fields. But in terms of H1N1, large human populations have led to huge industrialised death camps for chickens, pigs and cows.
These animals are kept in unnatural conditions, warehouses, heavily overcrowded to the extent that the animals go mad and get sick. They are kept alive on growth hormones and antibiotics until they have grown big enough to be slaughtered. This Clockwork system artificial feeding - turning cows essentially into fish pellet eating carnivores, chickens into cannibals and pigs into bottom feeders.
Both of the above - population growth and climate change - aren't likely to even slow down any time soon. So the trends we're seeing (killer diseases that smart bomb the human immune system) are going to get better at wiping us out. This is the planet's safety defence mechanism. Because the real pandemic is us.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)