Ecological Footprint.

This was a fun eye-opening little quiz. It’s called the Ecological Footprint Quiz. My new friends over at People Not Profit have posted some new thoughts on consumption. This is sort of what I was referring to when I talked about struggling with my “profession” and job that I do as a graphic designer.

Anyway, they discussed some statistics from the book Radical Simplicity. It’s estimated that there is about 4.7 acres of Earth available to everyone in the world if it was equally divided. This means that it would take 4.7 acres to sustain an equitable, fair quality of life for every human being. Even rising “first-world” countries like India (with the 2nd fastest growing economy behind China) only have 1.7 acre per person. Meanwhile, the average American needs 24 acres to sustain their lifestyle and consumption patterns.

According to the quiz (which is obviously a rough idea) it is estimated that Anna and I use 18 acres to sustain our lifestyle and consumption patterns. Which is 6 acres less than the average American. It takes 6.9 acres to provide my food. 1.2 acres for our car and driving. 5.4 acres to provide for our housing (utilities and construction). And 4.4 for all the “extra-curricular” things we consume like clothing, entertainment, etc.

If everybody lived like us, we would need 4.1 planets to sustain us.

So the guys at People Not Profit make this great point that I’ve been struggling with . . . that you can’t really buy yourself into a “greener” Earth. The only way is to avoid such gross over-consumption. Which obviously goes against our democratic and capitalist values. I mean for crying out loud, after 9-11 Bush made a speech where he said that we should go to the mall and spend to show the terrorists what’s up. Consumed (how ironic and odd is it that the quickest and easiest to give you the overview of a book is to link to it’s Amazon page – so check it out of the library) talks a lot about this, which I reviewed here.

Anybody honest enough to take the quiz and share? Or just share your thoughts?

[tags]Green Living, Ecological Footprint, Earth Day, Consumed, Radical Simplicity[/tags]

Two Videos Worth Watching.

Only 6 minutes total.

Chris Seay on $8 hot dogs and our disposable incomes. (ht: Joe Thorn)

Michael Frost on seeing through those at the bottom. (ht: Josh Case)

Seay at the end asks, “What do you do with that?”

I feel so heavy sometimes. Even before I watch videos like these. These make it heavier.

Then I feel the words of this haunting song. (lyrics here)

You gave your body to the lonely. They took your clothes. You gave up a wife and a family. You gave up your goals. To be alone with me. To be alone with me. To be alone with me. You went up on a tree. To be alone with me you went up on the tree. I’ll never know the man who loved me.

Inclusion and Exclusion.

So I was listening to a popular radio talk show host while in the shower yesterday. Discussing the immigration issue. Again, I’m not trying to be polarizing, it’s just that I keep thinking about it lately. Anyway, the host was talking about Eisenhower’s policies on immigration in the 1950′s. And how he arrested over 1 million immigrants in one year alone. And how today his talking points on immigration would be considered so politically incorrect and extreme. But how that’s what we need.

Maybe so.

But what about the immigrants who missed arrest in the 1950′s? What about those who have been in the U.S. 50+ years? Holding down jobs? Running businesses? Operating stores? Having children who went to school and learned English? Learning English themselves? Having their children go to college as full citizens? Paying taxes for 50+ years?

What about these immigrants who have been contributing, successful citizens of the United States for 50+ years? If Eisenhower had been more successful we would be missing a great many beneficial citizens that contribute to the wealth, health, and diversity of our nation.

This is where exclusion falls apart for me. It makes sense in theory. But falls apart when it begins to homogenize culture. Destroying and limiting diversity. I am in no way seeking a radical relativism. But exclusion has its limitations.

Perhaps this exclusion (and not inclusion) is what leads to such rampant immigration problems. In a culture that excludes, immigrants are forced to fly under the radar . . . sneeking across the border . . . avoiding detection so as not to get deported. It’s not that they don’t want to pay taxes as everyone so eloquently argues. It’s that if they come forward, they get sent back. Perhaps our policy of exclusion is at the root of this. If this was truly a democratic and open culture (as conservatives claim we have) then why do we have such exclusive politics.

I’m sure the argument will be, “If you’re too inclusive, you’ll have 9/11″ or “That’s how we got 9/11″. To be fair, the argument could certainly be made that if you’re too exclusive you’ll get Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.

I heard someone say that God has boundaries to include people as opposed to having boundaries to exclude people.

What would our politics look like if we had boundaries to include instead of exclude?

All of that to say that I think I would rather be on the side of inclusion. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. And granted there could be some huge consequences. But I believe there are some huge consequences of we practice exclusion and are wrong. On the side of inclusion you are FOR freedom, justice, equality for every race. On the side of exclusion you are FOR marginalizing, minimizing, fear, privilege to a privileged few.

And I wonder at what point our loyalty to another kingdom comes into play? Most conservatives are approaching this from a purely nationalistic American perspective. At what point does the kingdom of God come to bear on these immigration policies? It seems like if anyone should be fighting for immigration, it should be the church? Right?

Tank made a great point yesterday. Are we attempting to keep out immigrants because they are living more of the “American Dream” than we are?

[tags]Exclusion, Inclusion, 9/11, Immigration, Immigration+Reform, Immigration+Policy, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, American Dream[/tags]

Immigration & Cinco de Mayo.

Cinco de Mayo was over the weekend. This has been one of my more favorite holidays over the past few years. But this year I felt differently.

Even though I know it’s not technically Mexico’s Independence Day and more of an American holiday/excuse to drink than it is a Mexican holiday . . . I still felt weird about it this year.

For one it feels a bit odd for a bunch of suburbanites to crowd into Mexican restaurants all across the country while Mexicans are busy busting their asses to serve us Coronas and frozen margaritas. I mean on the U.S. 4th of July, everybody practically gets the day off. We use to relax. Go to the lake, the beach, or have a bbq in our backyards. We watch fireworks and drink. Spend time with our family and our friends.

On Cinco De Mayo, Mexican restaurants are filled with employees working 12+ hour shifts.

So this year, Anna and I and Eric celebrated on Friday night at our local eatery inside of a strip mall. Cuatro de Mayo. There are 3 waiters and waitresses. That’s it. We go in once a week and always on different days. And I’ve never seen a change in the staff. Meaning they are working a bunch of hours.

So a couple of thoughts . . .

1) Why are we complaining about immigrants? They do the work that fat, lazy Americans don’t want to do. And not only do they do it, but they do it better and they do it faster. And they don’t complain about it.

2) In all of this talk about immigration reform, it seems like most who oppose immigration are only doing so in reference to the Hispanic and Latino populations. Why not the Korean population? Why not the Vietnamese population? Why not the Ukranian population? Or the Bosnian? Or even the Kenyan or Sudanese?

Nobody seems to complain or care about those groups. Only the Hispanics. Which I think is racist.

3) What would you do if your family was in poverty and you had a chance to provide for them? I understand that the best option is to try and find a legal way to gain citizenship. I am certainly in this “camp”. But I think we all know the bureaucratic BS that happens in our top heavy government. Knowing that the application and legalization process is going to fail . . . would you give up and stay mired in poverty. Or would you force the issue and risk it all for a chance to rise above your current circumstances?

4) I find it so incredibly arrogant that we think that we somehow have the superior wisdom and knowledge to close our country off to immigrants when our history and past was built off of this. Less than a few generations removed from our relatives landing here from Ireland, Italy, Britain, and Poland to name a few . . . why do we now assume the position of closed doors when for 95% of us, “immigrant blood” runs through our veins? They Are America. Immigrants are the very essence and spirit of America. The only thing that scares us is that there daring, adventurous, entrepreneurial will-power reminds us of what we used to be about. Now that we are a shadow of that and have become lazy and apathetic in it’s place on our diet of American Idol and pop-crap . . . we hate those who remind us of what could and should be.

5) For those who love the Pledge of Allegiance (I find it to be nationalistic idolatry – since I’m already firing off my thoughts) what ever happened to one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

6) Building a wall is the dumbest idea to ever come out of our government’s think tanks. It is literally the equivalent of a bunch of little boys deciding to build a fort to protect themselves from the imaginary enemies.

7) There is one argument I can’t stand. “They don’t speak our language and refuse to do so.” How many languages can you speak? They speak one fluently and know broken English. Only lacking the confidence to turn the broken English into fluent English. So they know 2. You know 1. That means they are smarter than you. So shut up. When you go to another country, do you speak French? Or do you rely on English to convey what you want? Unless you speak fluent French when you go to France . . . shut up. Also . . . how quickly do you think our immigrant forefathers learned English? Not overnight I can assure you that.

Just like with our immigrant forefathers, the language was tough for the 1st generation adults that came over. But their children learned the language and the adults got better with it as they went along. The same with today’s immigrants. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with local neighborhood children who speak fluent, perfect English. While they’re parents speak broken English. Both are learning. And both are smarter than me and are attempting something that I’m to lazy to do. Give them some credit.

Immigration should be a legal process. But a big wall addresses a symptom and not the root. And if our top heavy government and bureaucracies can’t get their heads out of their butts, then I open my arms wide and say come anyway. Don’t bother sitting around and waiting a year for our government to get their stuff together. That year will turn into 2 years and that into 5 years and that into 25.

9) America was great. It is now questionable to even if it’s good. We’re boring. Plain. And quite predictable. I think a fresh influx of diversity and creativity is exactly what our country needs. Immigration is a nice kick start if you ask me.

10) That’s all I have. Sorry to get irate. Just tired of some of the arguments lately.

[tags]Immigration, Immigration Reform, Cinco de Mayo, Mexicans, Mexico[/tags]

Corporate Responsibility Mondays.

Well I know this will sadden all of you who love this daily dose of negativity. But for various reasons . . . this will be the last week of this series for a bit. I think in it’s place I’ll talk about something happy like puppies. Or what I ate for breakfast. Because those things are constructive. Sarcasm implied.

With that being said . . . Ariah and I will be discussing socially responsible investing. Ariah’s thoughts can be found here where he discusses some of the tension that exists within such an ambiguous area like “socially responsible investing”, as well as suggesting some positive investment strategies.

This is a rather tricky subject. One that Ariah highlights very nicely. So I’ll leave it to him to explain the difficulty in selecting a “socialy responsible investment”. But it’s extremely difficult simply because there are not necessarily clear cut lines. Black and white demarcations between “good” and “bad”. Even those that are considered “good” at some point along the social line do things corporately that have a negative effect on the environment, labor, or ethics.

But in the wise words of Nicholas Fielder – something is better than nothing.

The thing that makes investing such a difficult topic is that most of us don’t have enough money or experience to invest with single stocks (companies). We tend to have our retirements tied up in mutual funds and other group investments. So while it is easy to avoid investing in singular companies like Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola . . . it’s extremely time consuming and difficult to sort and sift through group funds.

For example . . . let’s take a look at Playboy. A company that most people would agree is probably not the pillar of family values and ethical behavior. Although I hear the articles are good. Take a look at their shareholder breakdown. Wells Fargo owns 2.6 million shares of stock making it the company with the 2nd highest percentage of stock in Playboy. And when it comes to mutual funds . . . Fidelity’s Small Cap Fund owns 2.4 million shares of stock (which amounts to 27 million dollars).

Now I could probably walk up and down the aisles of my old conservative church. And 99% of the people would be red in the face with anger if I said we should support Playboy. But if I went up and down the aisle and found all the people who had an investment in Fidelity’s Small Cap Fund . . . for most this would be the first time they had heard anything about it . . . and for others they would justify it somehow by extolling the virtues of capitalism.

The point is if you wouldn’t support Playboy as a company by buying their magazines and videos . . . then why would you have a portion of your investments going to a fund or company that owns a substantial percentage of the company? Or better yet 65% of the company is owned by mutual funds. With over 15% of those being owned by Fidelity. So I don’t know what the math is on 15% of 65% (a little help Eric . . .) but it’s probably close to 5% of the company. So technically you have a 5% investment in Playboy.

Do you see how quickly it starts to get tricky? You can easily see how blind many of us (including myself) make our decisions.

And I guess that’s the point of this whole little series. That started with ME wanting to find out where my money was going with the companies that I regularly support. Needless to say it was eye-opening for me.

So despite the perceived negativity that some have found . . . I hope it was an informative and challenging look at what happens when we spend our money blindly. Bottomline . . . we shouldn’t support things with our money that Jesus wouldn’t support with his. And to be even more blunt . . . we should deliberately subvert those things that he wouldn’t support, flipping over the tables if need be.

I want to thank Ariah for taking the time each week to post a topic that provides hopeful alternatives. That is a much more difficult task than me taking one company and ripping all of it’s bad virtues. So for that I am thankful to Ariah for his time and insight.

P.S. What do you want to be that my spam count will go through the roof now that I’ve used the word Playboy within a post?

[tags]Playboy, Socially Responsible Investing, SRI, Fidelity, Wells Fargo, Corporate Responsibility[/tags]