A Funeral

Last week I went to a funeral for the father of an old grad school friend; he was the same age as my parents. As the first funeral I've attended since my father's second cousin killed himself 15 years ago, I didn't quite know what to say to comfort my friend. So mostly I listened - to him, to the pastor, to the eulogy, trying to get a sense of who this man was and why he had died at the age of 58.

Death is uncomfortable to me. I realize the appalling selfishness of that sentiment, yet as a mortal and an atheist, it is an unavoidable anxiety. Trying to make sense of death is easy: life is a tremendously fragile entity, and for the most part, we humans go through it blissfully unaware of how precariously we tread at its edge. But no matter how long we manage to put it off, it will happen to all of us, and when I stop and quietly consider that inevitability, I am filled with a sense of dreadful awe. But at least it makes sense.

Trying to comfort someone who has experienced this loss is a more difficult task, though easier for some than others. The services were held at eleven in the morning, on a Saturday in early spring. I sat listening alternately to the birds outside, expertly staking claims in the trees, and the fumbling old pastor on the altar assuring us that, even as the coffin stood ready to be wheeled out for burial, this was not The End. My friend and I were trained by the same professors, in the same field. We have seen the same patterns of the natural world unfold in mathematics and logic. For neither of us is the enduring myth of heaven steadfast. And I struggled to understand his grief, and for words that were meaningful but not deception. This was The End for him. And, luck granting that I should outlive my parents, when it happens to them, it will be The End for me. But that has to be okay somehow.

We sang beautiful hymns. It is worth pausing here to mention that, no matter how deeply entrenched I become in my atheism, I can never shake the feeling of a soulful hymn. I am still deeply moved at Easter when the songs of resurrection and renewal fill the eaves of my father's cathedral. I cry at Christmas, the gentle carols of maternal love and eternal hope playing quietly on my mother's turntable. They touch pieces of my heart that will never be free of this wishful myth.

But it wasn't the songs echoing in the small chapel that gave me peace. They touch me and they strike memories long buried, but they hold no meaning for me now. I came to terms with the dead man and the answerless questions because of a crying baby in the back pew. We are all here for such a short time. Our children and their children will remember our names, but after that, we are forgotten. All we can hope to do is improve their lives, in some way, such that they are better off for our being here. This is immortality, and the only means to it. So this is how I tried to reassure my friend. I knew that his life and even my life through him, had been changed positively because of the man his father had been, and that in that way he would live on. Life moves ever forward despite our absence, but at least we have had the chance to contribute a note to its intricate symphony.

Social Democracy

I was recently sent, via e-mail, a number of quotes made by radical environmentalists regarding environmental policy as it relates to politics and the media. These quotes were meant to incite the reader, particularly by insinuating that the environmental movement is communism in disguise. Here is a sampling of the quotations I received:

On the media

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
~Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

"Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say."
~Ross Gelbspan, former editor of The Boston Globe.

On social organization

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
~Judi Bari, Earth First! member.

"The environmentalist's dream is an egalitarian society, based on rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."
~Aaron Wildavsky, political scientist and professor.

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists, and their projects... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
~David Foreman, EarthFirst! member.

As a scientist, I was highly offended by any assertion that scientific evidence of any kind should be censored, but I was not surprised. That is precisely why I make a distinction between "environmentalism" and "conservationism." Unfortunately for conservationists, however, environmentalists tend to say these things very loudly, so that's what people hear, making it easy to then dismiss the body of evidence being produced by good science every day.

And that evidence is overwhelmingly disturbing, suggesting an imminent global climate shift (which is a natural process, but severely magnified by human activity), increasing rates of extinctions, and high levels of habitat degradation. If you consider the sources, the few scientists who do oppose the consensus of the scientific community, are often working on grants from oil and pesticide companies, conservative organizations, or even individuals, and are about as trustworthy as fanatic environmentalists.

But the latter three quotes actually gave a voice to ideas that have been spinning in my mind for years. I do agree that environmental reform is fatally hindered in a traditional capitalist society. As long as it continues to be more profitable to pollute than to clean up, that's what will happen. The San Francisco Air Quality Management agency issued 388 citations in 30 months. The average fine? Just $699. For big business like Exxon, who accumulated 113 of those citations but raked in over $117 million of profit last year, seven hundred doesn't even blip the radar.

Rest assured, true socialism is probably not possible, at least in the foreseeable future. Isolated socialist states surrounded by a capitalist global economy are unable to compete and therefore do not. And even I have been brought to the admission point that an entirely planned economy cannot be effective. The complexity of a large, modern economy is too great for any one entity, such as a central government, to manage. Beyond that, the lack of work incentive is far too great an obstacle to overcome. Both China and the USSR had to bail out their agricultural industry by allowing farmers to culture private land for their own profits. Toward the end of the Soviet regime, industry was notoriously rampant with absenteeism, employee theft, and idleness.

Paul Brian of Washington State University notes that one of the greatest misconceptions by Americans about socialism is that it is somehow in opposition of democracy. When in reality, the ideals of socialism were inspired by democracy and created as an extension of it. Socialism is an attempt to democratize the economy as well as the government. And while, as we have seen, that may not work in its entirety, the ideas are not bad ones, and do not deserve to be dismissed as a whole.

Socialism is not the evil nor the failure that communism has been, but Americans are still so bitter and afraid that they cannot see the difference. There are countries in the world today, many in what we once called the "First World" (or, those capitalist countries aligned with the United States during the Cold War), with thriving socialist parties. They are called either 'social democrats' (the more moderate) or 'democratic socialists' (the farther left). Many Americans are under the impression that a socialist government is one that would be "in your business." Yet most democratic socialists support gay marriage, abortion, and a liberal drug policy. Now I would much rather have a government that tells me how I must treat my workers, or how I am to dispose of nuclear waste, than one that tells me whom I can and cannot marry.

These parties hold seats in parliaments, have produced presidents and/or prime ministers, and thus have a strong influence on their respective nations' government and economy, yet the citizens of these countries are every bit as free as you or me. You will notice the absence of such nations as China, North Korea, and Vietnam on the following roster. Those are communist states, not socialist states.

A list of the strongest socialist parties in the world today:
• Labour Party, United Kingdom
• New Democratic Party, Canada
• Labor Party, Australia
• Labour Party, New Zealand
• Labour Party, Norway
• Social Democratic Party, Germany
• Social Democratic Party, Sweden
• Social Democratic Party, Belgium
• French Socialist Party, France
• Spanish Socialist Worker's Party, Spain
• Labour Party, Ireland
• Socialist Party, Netherlands

Do these countries strike you as the "axis of evil"? Yet they employ many socialist ideas and practices. Today, socialist ideas are best employed as a way of regulating capitalism than as a system of economics. An added benefit of many of these practices is that they tend to have positive implications for environmental reform. And in all likelihood, you agree with many of them, in part or in whole:

Equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of wealth. None of the following principles are novel, yet you may not know of them as socialist ideals. All Americans have heard the phrase "equal opportunity," as in "equal opportunity employer," or "equal opportunity lender," and maybe more recently, "equal opportunity housing." In a capitalist society, the perception is that every citizen has the chance to succeed as much as every other. Realistically, however, in a society where wealth is power and often is funneled from one generation to the next, this is not the case. Equal opportunity initiatives are those that attempt to mitigate this imbalance by offering greater assistance to those who are most in need of it. Many Americans tout their country as the land of opportunity. Few would disagree, when confronted, that a child going to school in south Philadelphia has the same quality of teachers, facilities, or resources as one growing up in east Hampton. Socialist states attempt to eliminate, not just diminish, these inequalities.

Public health care. It astounds me beyond all words how vehemently opposed most Americans are to the idea of public health care. If there is one institution that should more obviously be made universal than health, I challenge you to find it. In what way is a rich man's cancer less devastating than a poor man's? Rising costs of medical care and prescription drugs have sent Americans flocking to the Canadian border, yet we despise the very thought of instituting such a system at home. Many cite Canada's long waits for care. But private health care is still very much available in Canada, if you are willing and able to pay for it. At the same time, those who are unable to pay for private insurance are given the security of being able to seek care when they need it. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan research group in Washington, D.C., just over 40% of employed Americans are without health insurance. That figure has risen from 36% in the year 2000. This is unacceptable. What is more unacceptable, however, is how many Americans are willing to tolerate it.

Multilateralism. The movement of policy-making from the national to the global stage is a strong component of socialist platforms. Developing and supporting such important legislation as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Ottawa Convention (banning production and trade of anti-personnel land mines), and the Kyoto Protocol are leading nations with strong socialist values. None of the aforementioned treaties have been signed by the Unites States. In many of the cases, the US is alone in abstention. While global government may not ever be a reality, multilateralism is undoubtedly growing. There are now 188 members of the United Nations, as compared with just over 50 when it was formed. In their 2001 book, Multilaterialism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement, Shepherd Forman and Steward Patrick outline eight critical, negative affects of a unilaterialist approach to impending globalization. Though they write from the perspective of the United States, their conclusions could be logically applied to any developed nation that chose to act unilaterally as often as the U.S. has and does. The price for unilateralism falls upon both the world and the nation itself, and include, but are not limited to:

-the hinderance of the nation's ability to mobilize necessary international support
-the retardation of the spread of international standards of living
-the weakening of institutions critical to national interests

Progressive taxation. Unless you support a flat tax, my American friends, you are in on this highly socialist institution. Granted, America's highest tax bracket of 35% doesn't compare to Belgium's 60%, and in fact, the United States has one of the lowest tax ceilings in the world. Nonetheless, the idea of paying more in taxes than you take home is distasteful, even to those Americans who will never see a one-third bracket. Nonetheless, I argue that if you can afford to pay more than half of your income in taxes, then you can afford to pay more than half of your income in taxes. At that point, the question begs to be answered: of what, exactly, are you being deprived? A second boat? Another BMW? A second home on the beach? It is a wonder to me that anyone living in this country and seeing the hard times of others can even take part in these luxuries without pangs of unresolvable guilt.

Strong social welfare program. Perhaps it is not surprising that a welfare program is a highly socialist ideal. What is surprising to me is the overwhelming disapproval of Americans toward the welfare system. Republicans, supported strongly by the religious right, continually speak out against this established program. Why is helping the poor not a cornerstone of the platform on which they stand? Then again, I am just another soulless atheist seeking world peace and an end to poverty.

These are good ideas, in philosophy if nothing else. And many are, in fact, working quite well in practice all over the world. Beginning to think of the nations wealth, health, and resources as a common good rather than a private one leads to more utilitarian and responsible use of natural resources. Now, it is true that this alone does not a global perspective make.

The socialist mindset is particularly effective in bringing about environmental reform if and only if you are able to foster an appreciation for less conventional perceptions of the worth of natural resources, biotic and abiotic.

For my part, I do what I can. I live modestly, recycle, vote, and teach. I have very little in the way of optimism for human beings, but I am quite willing to be proven wrong.