commodity oddity

The planet is not able to sustain human life everywhere. Some areas have lots of oil, some lots of water, some lots of gold, some lots of people, some lots of big empty spaces. Commoditization (as much as it rubs me the wrong way) is a way of facilitating the exchange between trading partners who have too much of one thing and not enough of the other, and both (should) come out ahead. If you can't live locally off the land and you can't generate enough of what other people want to trade for what you need, perhaps you simply shouldn't be living there. Unfortunately, that philosophy isn't compatible with the UN philosophies of human rights and anti-poverty campaigns that required when you enforce borders and citizenship. Without commoditization and trade, there is an imbalance, and the resulting feeling of resentment creates political and thus economic stability and we're all worse off. In the end, that means that for the developed world to maintain its lifestyle, it is in our best interest to provide basic needs like water where it is needed, as a form of protection money for us to keep living the way we do. Question is, though, how sustainable can that be?

having their cake - and eating it too

I half-listened to a segment on the news tonight, something about health care, aging population, and fewer working Canadians to support them.

Aren't they (demographically speaking) the generation of DINKs and Freedom55ers that was too busy enjoying life to put up with the inconvenience of raising families, and now have the gall to complain there aren't enough kids to pay for their care?
Gee, whodathunk that leisure wasn't a sustainable social model?

On the other hand, we have to give them credit for all the opportunities they've created for upcoming generations, what with all the foreign-owned shops looking for sales associates at minimum wage to sell wares made by countries where there still exists a strong work ethic (admittedly, out of necessity).