In the past five years, the phrase “global warming” has descended into an almost legendary ubiquity. You’d think that such a harsh reality would have spawned a new revolution of something along the lines of that. Instead, all we got were cute-but-kitschy home living articles like “10 Ways to Save the World” or “100 Ways to Go Green – While Saving Green.” To their credit, these articles are for the most part well-intentioned – but that’s about it. Not at all what you would call hard-hitting or groundbreaking. Plenty of people out there protest, “What do you mean, we’re not making progress in the battle against global warming? Look at all these concerned people so focused on making people change their filthy ways! The Green Revolution has officially kicked off.” My response? You’re all delusional.

While these articles are certainly on the right track, they give off the impression that a few suspiciously simple lifestyle or product changes will instigate spectacular reductions in carbon emissions and place a notable damper against the nefarious wrongdoing of global warming. Therefore, they convince individuals that going green is easy and effortless. Although I agree that small acts of conservation and energy awareness can add up in households, it’s not enough. Not even close. A Green Revolution is by no means easy, nor is it characterized by little changes. It’s about innovation and sometimes drastic long-term modifications in life and society. Unlike the suggestions of articles, which make people adopt a complacent attitude about “saving the world,” the most prodigious leaps made against environmental destruction really capture the gist and scale of the issue – we’ve dug ourselves in this so deep with carbon dioxide and pollutant spewing machines and buildings, that it’s going to take years – and a stronger backhoe – to get us all out.

First of all, people-pleasing government officials need to stop worrying so much about so-called “convenience”. When asked if American officials should change their lifestyles in a green movement, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “That’s a big no.” What an incredibly productive mindset. If we don’t change our ways, we’ll end up killing ourselves with our own emissions – think of it as choking on your own spit.

The same goes for legislation. We know that Corporate America loves lobbying so that emission and fuel standard restrictions stay low; unless the legislative branch really steps up and refuses to let itself be sucked up to, no problems will ever be resolved. Sure, we like to think that everyone’s an idealist, but let’s be honest; the only reason a lot of companies adhere to standards – often just barely – is because it’s the law. We need more innovation in these areas, that’s true – but in a substantial number of cases we have the means, but we just need the implementation. And implementation is achieved by increasing efficiency standards, which, in the U.S., have actually decreased on average over the past 30 years and have essentially flat lined in the present day. With a little legislation, despite what may be unpopular in the short-term, the long-term results are indubitable. Take a look at Denmark. In little more than two decades, they managed to reduce their dependence on foreign oil to essentially zero, and the economy still flourished. We could learn a thing or two from them.

Bottom line: Sure, it’s great that people are being more conscious about their consumption, but they need to understand that while reducing their energy usage is better than nothing, it doesn’t begin to solve the issue. While it means using less energy and emitting fewer emissions, we’re still undeniably using energy and emitting emissions. Once big-ticket items are made more energy-efficient and energy sources are changed to healthier ones on a large scale, then we can finally say we’ve made some headway. This means pushing for legislation and spending more time and money – and focus.

Global warming – and putting an end to it, going green – is not a matter to be taken lightly or in overconfident stride. Never underestimate the destructive power of one of our own creations. 

400 Bad request

Your browser sent an invalid request.
Automatically translated into Russian thanks to WorldLingo

 

In most morally respectable people of today, the phrase “child labor” often evokes feelings of utter repugnance. So obviously, the use of products and services from corporations that employ children is usually frowned down upon by individuals from every and all walks of life. I was – and to an extent still am – a part of this rather sizeable group of morally righteous, forward-thinking individuals. As a result, a whole slew of anti-child labor nonprofits have been formed with the straightforward goal of reducing, and perhaps eliminating, child labor. In fact, a lot of charities work to either push for something recognized as good or eradicate something recognized as bad. But is charity really so one-dimensional?

Any sensible person, when confronted with the issue of child labor, would likely draw parallels to child abuse. An argument against child labor would go something along the lines of, “Whoever in the corporate world came up with the idea of using child labor is probably sick and demented. Why would companies resort to such horribleness? I mean, are they seriously okay with children having no choice but to work in pathetic conditions?”

On the other hand, an economist might take an entirely different stance. If all children had their basic needs covered and had ample access to food, shelter, and education, this would be the ideal solution and child labor could be obliterated and forgotten. Yet realistically, this is not happening at the moment due to the socioeconomic atmosphere of today. For example, the unfair income distribution in many countries could be severely detrimental to these children’s lives. Thus, many of these children are forced to work under-age, usually in a bad environment, to support himself/herself and his/her family. To many of them, this might be the best solution for the children and his/her family. If we were to take away the children’s jobs, where would they end up? On the streets, suffering from starvation? In black markets like prostitution? It can be argued that all these consequences will end up harming the children more. These impoverished children will probably not attend school if out of work, owing merely to a lack of adequate infrastructure and scanty means for the family to do so.

That prompts us to ask: Is pressure for children to be relieved from their jobs, which may be their best bet of subsistence – really the best solution at this point in time? Of course, many of us personally don’t understand how it feels to be a low-wage worker in unfavorable conditions. But we may be endeavoring to address such an issue in a wrong – or at least untimely – manner.

Bottom line: It’s imperative for nonprofits to get their priorities straight. Child labor must undoubtedly be a horrendous reality for scores of children throughout the developing world. But until we solve pressing issues such as education opportunities and hunger, if we try to eradicate child labor, the same children these organizations are trying to help will lack any post-work support. Therefore, a layered or pyramid-esque approach to charity would benefit us, similar to a hierarchy of issues. Once we sufficiently tackle the basics, we can layer on efforts working toward the slightly less urgent and fundamental issues, and so on.

However, this does not apply exclusively to the child-labor problem. There are dozens of global disputes and obstacles that would benefit from an international aid version of the Hierarchy of Needs. With more present focus on the essentials, so-called “next step” or “next layer” charities will bear much more fruit in the near future. After all, isn’t smooth progress what we all want? 

400 Bad request

Your browser sent an invalid request.
Automatically translated into Italian thanks to WorldLingo

400 Bad request

Your browser sent an invalid request.
Automatically translated into Portuguese thanks to WorldLingo

 We’ve all heard of the fifteen-minutes-of-fame notion. It’s usually reserved for extravagant mishaps or those "priceless" daredevil moments. While the majority of these temporary newsmakers are absolutely absurd, and cause a stirring almost exclusively due to idiocy, some deserve a little more star treatment. Take the 2010 Haitian earthquake, for example. A few months of shocked devastation, and then the aid and the limelight begins to dwindle. Of course, there are other social issues that need to be addressed, but it seems as if the mainstream population has the attention span of a dim-witted gnat. A few intensive months of relief is

not going to place a damper on long-term harm. As areas struck by natural disaster being to reel from withdrawal symptoms, are we simply casting them away? A simple question can gauge this: How many of you were aware that even before the quake, Haiti was one of the poorest areas, in dire need of aid? Better yet: How many of you knew that due to skyrocketing food prices worldwide, scores of destitute Haitian individuals have been driven to making, eating and selling mud cookies for subsistence?

Bottom line: Aid is incredibly volatile based on the events of the world, and there are some stories that are missing. Even if some issues are peripheral, that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. If this information received more public and mainstream exposure, that may be the first step to resolving the upsetting (and upsettingly ignored) problems we face.

400 Bad request

Your browser sent an invalid request.
Automatically translated into Spanish thanks to WorldLingo

 What once was green dissolved to dust

The rolling hills now hills of rust

Why do you ask who stained the lands

When this was done by our own hands?

 

Intoxicate Her, Suffocate Her

Disappoint the One who made Her

Step on the sand, your footprints lay

These, the waves can’t wash away

 

What once was a clear black night

Is one where the stars are out of sight

Raging streams annihilated

By our own greed, we’ve been subjugated.

 

The worst part is, does anyone care?

Who makes Her their everyday affair?

She is the rich carpet of terrain.

She who cleanses us with her gentle rains

 

The luscious stems of God-crafted fruits

All Her pains and efforts trapped in her roots

All she gives us without thanks or complaint

All that God has granted, we just shrug away.

 

Reduce, reuse, and just plant a tree.

Walk, don’t drive, and then we’ll all see.

If we don’t destroy woods, and whole habitats

The world will prosper, and She’ll thanks us for that.

 

So please don’t ask, who stained our lands

Please know this was by our own hands

But we can fix this mess, we can.

It CAN be done… by our own hands.

 

400 Bad request

Your browser sent an invalid request.
Automatically translated into Dutch thanks to WorldLingo

 

Amid distasteful accounts of privacy infringement, censorship, and virtual theft, it’s no wonder that scores of policymaking circles worldwide view the deepening hellhole of cybersecurity with consternation. Apparently, though, the global debacle has finally reached a tipping point, at least to the U.S. government. In recent months, the Obama administration proposed the creation of an international framework in order to improve the sorry state of computer security regulation. The fundamentals include setting global standards, while penalizing any countries and major organizations that fail to satisfy the requirements. In addition, it pledges to toughen expectations for virtual security, cracking down on fraud, protecting privacy, and promoting Internet freedom. Sounds wonderful, right?

Indeed it does. Yet preserving the rights of nations while accomplishing such a large-scale computer security agenda is difficult and makes the situation unexpectedly convoluted. The multitudes of cybersecurity officials naively singing "Kumbaya," convincing others that they are promoting a universally favored plan, are blind to the fact that developing such strict norms will polarize nations and place a strain on international relations. If this were to be pursued, nations as a whole would benefit more if incentivized, not penalized. The proposed plan is also rigid in nature and international or interdepartmental collaboration, while encouraged in this proposal, bears limited fruit.

The plan aims to democratize and liberate Internet content, fight impending cybercrime and intellectual property theft, and ensure that the privacy of computer users is not compromised. However, implementing large-scale measures in an endeavor to achieve these goals is unfeasible and will generate little impact. Intuitively, different cybersecurity threats are posed in different countries, and as such, the means of conquering them will vary. Additionally, computer security threats possess a tendency to remain largely localized before becoming of note. Dealing with such an issue should not result in a generalized process. This is the implication of the proposed cybersecurity strategy nonetheless. Proponents of the policy argue that they want states to be "unified… so we can send a clear message to bad actors that there's going to be no place for them to operate."

Who exactly are these "bad" actors and how exactly do we know that they are, in fact, espousing ulterior motives or exercising negligence? We don’t. This means that any proposed legislation will entail mistrust and finger-pointing, especially in the modern day, where it is increasingly difficult to accurately place blame.

Is the United States wrong for trying to enact legislation on a global scale for cybersecurity? Most likely this plan is well-intentioned, but the means need some serious rethinking before policymakers can implement this plan – and expect it to work.

Bottom line:

The prospective plan for enforcing global cybersecurity standards needs broader applicability. Rigidly fixed standards, considering significant gaps in situations from nation to nation, with a carrot-and-stick rewards system, will simply not work. In order for this proposal to be efficient, standards must be more flexible and progressive. Nations should pledge to improve the outlook on individual threats they face based not on generalized standards but on urgency, and penalization should only occur where the nation has truly been complacent. Such negligence should be determined by taking into consideration the height of response, given the circumstances and infrastructure. Nations should also be working together in order to resolve each others’ issues in cybersecurity, even when focusing on individualized progress. After all, the Internet is interconnected. Threat response should be localized, albeit with globalized means, while early detection should be stressed. It is not enough to blame China and Russia for so-called "Internet Communism" and punish them as such; rather, flighty response should be pushed and compromises need to be reached. This is not comparable to any other national security threat, and it cannot be resolved by military or economic force. Rather, our approach must be more diplomatic and informational. After all, in the Decade of Information, it’s what we should be asking for.

 

400 Bad request

Your browser sent an invalid request.
Automatically translated into Swedish thanks to WorldLingo