Inspired #8: In Closing

As the semester comes to a close, there were a lot of things to reflect on in policy that has helped me see issues from new angles. The rise sophistication of Internet technology will lead to question about privacy and online identity rights. Some will bring up the Bill of Rights. Others will point at the number of attempted hacking of government and corporation computers. Nonetheless, the Internet still provides a place for sharing like no other invention before its time. You can find videos, jokes, news, keep up with friends, and chat, all on Facebook alone. I find it amazing to think that it was not long ago that I was using dial up with the cliche dialing noise that sounded like you were losing service on a cell phone today.

How about those cell phones? The computer abilities on them are quickly catching up to those of laptops. While they cannot execute large software, you can still do all of your Internet surfing on there and share content like you would at your desk computer. It may be a little arduous to use at times, I see that it has passed the Internet in the touch screen user interface which more computers are using, including the ordering machines at Sheetz! If will not be long until nearly all devices are on a network, called cloud computing. This will create a new interactive web atmosphere where even greater potential for exploitation exists. Throw in virtual reality that will be mainstream use in chatting and video games, and you have a future where the web will dictate a sizable portion of everyday life. Conference meetings in virtual reality or at least Skype with a camera will become the norm.

Then there are a plethora of other daunting foreign policy topics. Each in some way has this utter doomsday scenario it seems. But, that might also have some bias in order to push policy through. The main point overall though is how unpredictable the future is. The best we can do is strive to create programs now that will maintain a stable livelihood of the country and attempt to repeat it such that people always live well. Is that not what policy is ultimately about anyway? Trying to make life better, safer, and with less effort? It is quite possible many different sides of an issue will be enacted as policies themselves at some points in our lives, only to be repealed by legislation advocating the other side. In ways, it is cyclical in nature but always interesting to watch unfold.

In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone for a good semester full of discussion, reflections, thoughts, and viewpoints. I personally like these type of discussion-based classes.

Have a great winter break!

Inspired #7: Keeping Streams Clean

Slaving away at a fluids class this semester has not made me fond of thinking of water, save when I eat dry cafeteria meat. Despite my school horror, I cannot see a world without water. Not only for the obvious reason of survival, but many things at home, in industry, in research, and many office coolers rely on a steady flow of water. When we were down in Washington D.C. for the CSIS exercise, the one presenter had the strong analogy of water. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details, but I believe he said that if you had a gallon of water, one pint is fresh water and one drop is what we can currently use and drink.

So, that to me says a couple things. One, the glaciers and other fresh water sources are still out there, but melting the glaciers would have an effect on ocean salt content, which would affect many ocean life as a result. Plus, the change in ocean temperature would cool down water in the tropics where many fish make their living. The other thing this says is that there is a ridiculous amount of salt water. So, desalination in a moderate quantity is probably a safe practice that will likely become required, especially in regions with low amounts of fresh water like Southern California or Australia.

A quick survey of the EPA website shows how water contamination is a danger to health. Contaminants in water will get into both drink and food, causing illness, or possibly damaging body parts with significant exposure. Reducing the amount of aquatic wildlife will change the food chain, which might actually be a more covert consequence discussed less than illness. Changing the structure of the food chain can lead to less fish and animals that make up our diets. More people and less food does not sound like a bright prospect.

We have to stop throwing chemicals into the water supply. There is a finite supply of it until water desalination becomes economically feasible as evaporating water requires a lot of energy such that it is not cost effective to do. This is another practice caused by people that has led to negligence. While we are clever, we should not overlook the importance of this resource.

Looking back, the past few blogs to me seem like what I think are aspects of society that are not taken seriously enough, and ironically, a lot of it is the basics. Feeding people, having clean air, getting water, and balancing a budget are things that each of us are expected to do. Then why cannot governing bodies do a better job of them? It seems that mass production and our demand for technology has led to all of this. I am optimistic in people though. Yes, we may never always do it pretty let alone wait until the last minute to take action. However, society as a whole always seems to find ways around bugs like these.

Inspired #6: Electrifying our Cars

Doing the research for the policy brief, I have come to have a better understanding of where electric vehicles stand. Yes, at the moment, they are too expensive in order to be placed as America's car of choice. The Nissan Leaf costs anywhere from $27,000 to $30,000. While that may be a tad higher, it still shows that electric vehicles are at least in the wallet range of most consumers. It's not some Ferrari or anything of that sort. So then, why are they not that prevalent?

The answer lies in the fueling. How are you going to charge an entire car? There is potential with charging it at your home. The issue then becomes how do you fix it if it breaks? From my experience, electrical repairs are a lot more costly than mechanical ones. Also, there is a smaller share of the auto repairs market that does electrical work. Just drive around town and notice the vast difference between inspectors/ auto body shops vs. electrical repairs. Finally, there are a lack of charge stations, 5,000, compared to 126,000 gas stations in the U.S. So, you cannot really go on a trip without hoping to find a charge station along the way, unlike the steady supply of gas stations.

Despite the current drawbacks. The technology will only improve, and the repairs will be made simpler as people find ways to re-evaluate electrical systems. Over time, hydrogen fuel cells will become a probability and they can create the electricity needed for cars to move. So perhaps there does not have to be a huge influx of charge stations until the vehicle becomes more viable.

The ideal set up to me would be having solar panels in the deserts, wind turbines on the Rockies, and tidal turbines on the coast transporting electricity on the Smart Grid. Nuclear will offset the difference until solar takes over. From there, the electricity goes to charge stations or helps process hydrogen gas for fuel. Then the electric car would charge up or have a hydrogen fuel, both which would be clean. I guess market forces will decide which prevails after the electric hybrid car phase. Overall though, clean energy capture to transmission to vehicle paves the way for a fresh kind of air that has not been since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Inspired Post #5: Spending for a Balanced Check Book

The CSIS presentation highlighted the essential doom occurring in Europe, and the presenter seemed to be happy regardless of the gloom of her research. I recall reading this unfold over the summer as I sat in on lunch during my internship and seeing Greece go further into political gridlock with a begging hand out to the European banks. According to CitiGroup, a collapse of the euro would spark global depression and unemployment could possibly go over 20% as well. However, the currency will likely not dissolve so as long as Spain, Italy, or other large countries leave the Union.

This same tune is playing over here in the States where an essentially useless Congress bickers over how to balance the budget and cut the deficit. The lack of action though seems to come from political tactics rather than a major disagreement. I personally do not see any way this debt will be paid off at all in the short term, with that time period being defined as fifteen to twenty years. The government has made cuts that amount to a few trillion over the period of the decade. Unless if I am mistaken, that means there will probably be a good amount of future budgets still running a deficit, continuing to run up the overall national debt.

The bear in the room has been mentioned previously and that is the elderly. Retirement will cause an implosion of demand for Social Security and Medicare. The future of these social programs might have to dissolve. So, a growing debt coupled with more people the government owes checks to, and you create a financial mess that is entangling Capitol Hill, suffocating it.

As it stands now, the debt is at $15.1 trillion dollars according to the US Debt Clock. The push to spend more and more without creating a sustainable infrastructure has created an environment where money needs to also be spent to upgrade the foundation of our nation, but it is also at a time when saving and cuts must be made.

Interestingly, the exact same basic advice we are given as children to "always buy what you need, not what you want" or "a penny saved is a penny earned" are washed away by the tides of aging, especially when young adulthood is reached. Even the group of people entrusted to manage a country's cash flow have failed to not only not save, but build a debt that has made more front pages than the college football BCS national title game. Well..it came close at least.

People to me are closing using their hand to block their ears and singing catchy tunes to procrastinate attempting a solution to the problem, ignoring the chance of a depression. Having a balanced budget should be a priority, and any deficit one year must have a feasible repayment in a span of five to ten years. This does not contradict when I brought up investing in science as I think scientific investment pays itself off economically, and our government seems to be redundant in many ways. I remember researching for the policy brief and finding boards and agencies with very similar functions. Cutting the national IOUs, spending, and creating smart investments now is the best way forward.

Inspired #4: Scientific Stagnation

The United States has a contradictory relationship with science. In one respect, we brag about what we have done along with demanding that we must remain the leaders in innovation for the 21st century. On the other hand, the country has a whole has more interest in everything else than science. This can be proven by what people consider important or interesting to them. Our television shows people taking on 5th graders as something worth more of their attention than science. People do tend to neglect the impact that it has on their lives since most products in society is created from scientific ideas.

Although, we would still be able to advance despite the general apathy of people if it was funded properly and allowed for a breadth of ideas to have a chance at the spotlight. This is not the case. For example, according to a New York Times article, cancer researchers are forced to conform to research small but safe projects instead of potentially groundbreaking research. Similar to what we have learned in policy where donor of think tanks want secure and specific investments, the same concept applies to scientific grants. There is too much inherent risk of spending money on a project that can have no upside, even if that upside would be enormous.

Scientists are fuming over this. Scientific American published an article in May 2011 posing inquiries into this issue. They researched scientists receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, and the result was that "the NIH grants last three years, end abruptly if they are not renewed and have very strict requirements—for instance, preventing scientists from shifting money from a project that is not working out to a more promising approach."

The funding agencies are looking to the traveled down path in order to create scientific advancement. This is a folly and will not allow the country to be the leader in the 21st century if it continues to stifle researchers. Many of them who must take up residence in a lab or university to make ends meet since their skills are not conducive to the business world. Combine that and the thorny U.S. patent system and banks giving less loans to start-ups due to the recession, and you have successfully bounded up plenty of potential that people may be able to offer.

Another constraint occurs in academia as young doctoral students will likely face an uphill battle. A study by Virginia Tech states that "But for many of today's graduate students, the future could not look bleaker". There is heavy competition for grants and a lack of opportunity for jobs requiring PhDs, and this is certainly the case due to the money aspect. Also in the study, Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said that graduate students "...get a sense that this is a really frustrating career path,". Universities find it much cheaper to hire post-docs and graduate students than full fledged PhD researchers with tenure. Industry echoes a similar tune where they see PhD as demanding too much money. Why would you pay someone with a doctorate degree in theoretical physics when few jobs require that level of expertise? In fact in engineering, Master's degree holders make more than PhD holders while those with a professional license make out even better.

We have to stifle this before the country lags behind in science. Admissions to graduate schools should become in line with the market openings. The government should risk more innovation that can create new industries and hence jobs. Eroding science research wears down on new technology, so other countries can create the products first. Then we end up importing more than exporting. The future of national security rests with a stable scientific base since pure manpower is quickly becoming an archaic concept. If the the 21st century is to be another American century, priorities have to change.

Inspired #3: Starvation, Procrastination, and Action

In the presentations over the last two weeks, one fact that I was particularly surprised by came from the health group when they gave statistics on expenditures battling different physical ailments. HIV and other infectious diseases had a good share, but hunger was given a measley $3.5 billion, much less than those diseases. While they cannot be ignored, I find it hard to believe that hunger does not take a larger spot. It's not some vaccination research; it's merely a supply chain of food and sanitation to those in need. So, it may be cheaper to do hunger issues, but still, to think that our federal prison system costs almost 7 billion annually shows a propensity to locking people up over feeding others.

According to World Hunger.Org, there were about 925 million people in the world that were starving in 2010. The world population was about 6.85 billion at that time. A quick calculation shows that is 13.5% of the world population. That is nearly one in seven people that do not have access to a basic amenity of life. Despite our large population, there is still plenty of land on this planet, and, if need be, we can probably conjure up methods to improve crop cultivation if the need arises. Then, how are so many people not having a chance to eat? Predictably, most of these people are from impoverished areas or weather stricken regions that are in the most peril.

World Hunger.Org notes:

"Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do."

You must have seen those commercials claiming a small daily investment feeds so many poor people, and then you hear of Wall Street suits making mega million bonuses. I'm sure if people in these positions were willing to give up a spare yacht, this hunger problem could be easily resolved. That's too easy though. Let's create a foundation funded by tax dollars asking for donations from people who make several hundred every two weeks to end this world hunger thingy!

 Yet, that is where we are. Granted, there are numerous wealthy people who do contribute to good causes, it cannot be understated that many others have succumbed to a survival of the fittest drive that's dictated by monetary accumulation. To think that the one major fund only spends $3.5 billion is throwing a bone at the problem and is futile at best. By addressing hunger better, you ensure that their immune systems will be better, which would ultimately cause a reduction in other diseases. Without having to fight for such a bare necessity, they can throw their livelihoods and efforts toward more economically productive endeavors and create a health care of their own national scale in time. That way they can address infectious diseases themselves. Point in case, if we do not mitigate hunger, we will be open a threshold to other illnesses to pay for.

Inspired #2: Standard of Living and GDP

One theme that permeates policy, which not in a direct light, is the belief that GDP growth corresponds to a higher living standard. It is based on the idea that access to better health, education, and income creates a more better life. Generally, I will not cover it up and say that it does not help. The opportunities we are given as opposed to people in less develop worlds cannot be undercut. However, the quality of life always seems to be tied to materialistic viewpoints such as career, class, and living arrangements.

Investopedia defines this as "the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area.". One particular area they highlighting was number of hours work, which is a large contributor to life quality. Yes, you can have lavish health and nice trips, but it is ultimately how you feel and reflect on the inside that enables a good life. Furthermore, investment bankers can make millions, but the 100 hour weeks is at the expense of time they could have with their children or just pure leisure.

However, it is not treated like this in policy context. Quality of life really boils down to the ole' GDP per capita, and this is an erroneous method to evaluate people.According to the New York Times, "mounting evidence suggests, however, that per-capita income is a less reliable measure of well-being when income inequality has been rising rapidly, as it has in recent decades." The inequality in wealth is very noticeable, yet I think that the emphasis on money has ripped at the fabric of the mental health of many.

Oh really? I proposed the amazing idea that money does not buy happiness! This is clearly a terrific point that will win Noble Prizes. But, on a realistic note. People are overworked. European countries has a leisure class attitude that has spilled over into today, so you see people relax right in the middle of the day. They relax for the sake of relaxing while a sizable number of Americans eat while working. In his book "The Joy of Not Working", Ernie Zelinski astutely points out how the large flux of Baby Boomers in the 70s caused a job shortage for such a large generation. So, people competed for jobs by working harder. The companies were too eager to take advantage of this mentality that has become stronger since the resilient work ethic of the 30s.

Students in college are a prime example: always on the move. Schedules filled up and darting from here to there, crossing many things off the list. But...is it worth it? Quality of life should be defined by satisfaction, not some economic measure that only analyzes resource constraints. Laboring for years on end, hoping for a happy ending underscores the time one spends now. Thus, work and the associated income is a poor measure, exception for one who is passionate about what they do. Along with basic economic measures, our thoughts, movements, and expressions as a culture should determine overall happiness. The Occupy movement outlines an underlying frustration that does not indicate a blissful homeland.