The Tragedy of the Commons & Global Health

Response Blog Post #5

As Hardin describes in his “tragedy of the commons,” the commons, or shared, public access lands, are overgrazed because farmers have the ability to send their livestock onto the land at zero price. Mostly all farmers know that putting too many cows on a pasture will eventually destroy it by overgrazing. Yet, even with this knowledge in mind, they knowingly participate in overgrazing it anyways. Therefore, the public good is sacrificed for the individual good, because the cows cannot grow in a destroyed pasture. Although there initially seems to be an individual benefit of the ability to avoid needing to pay for land to allow cows to graze on, it doesn’t last long, because the lands become overgrazed and destroyed for cattle purposes. The individuals cannot escape the inevitability that the harm to the common is inherently a harm to each of them as well, and this is essentially what the social dilemma, the “tragedy of the commons” exemplifies.

This “tragedy of the commons” dilemma situation is largely demonstrated by global health and the misuse of antibiotics. Antibiotics are very important drugs to prevent the spread of disease, but they are supposed to only be used for bacterial infections. Yet, people use them for viral infections too. In doing so, the overexposure allows bacteria to build resistance and share resistant properties as they reproduce. If you take an antibiotic when you actually have a viral infection, the antibiotic is still attacking bacteria in your body – bacteria that are either beneficial or even those that are not causing the infection. This misdirected treatment can then promote antibiotic-resistant properties in harmless bacteria and allow bacterial strains to evolve and form resistance.

Although many perceive antibiotics as “wonder drugs” because they tend to work quickly and with little side effects, that is not a green light to use them 24/7. Patients widely pressure their doctors for antibiotic prescriptions because they want relief from their symptoms, no matter what the root cause of their illness. This common-held reasoning should be dispelled, because once the initial satisfaction of relief is gone, the problem is exacerbated in the form of a global public health concern.

It is nearing the end of 2015, health and medicine have been around for thousands of years, yet still, major biological injustices are being made every day. People are misusing antibiotics, and many who are doing so don’t understand the gravity of the situation. While widespread and often needless antibiotic use might cause a direct individual benefit, the cost of the widespread resistance is more distributed, and definitely acts as a larger hindrance to society and global health. The difficulty arises in that the solution to this problem, to ending antibiotic resistance, requires us to put society before the individual. Curtailing the rapid increase of resistance is only possible if some patients go untreated. This brings up the issue of the serious ethical concerns that follow. Undoubtedly, society would benefit from further restrictions in the number of times that each patient can take antibiotics in order to limit evolutionary selection for resistant strains. However, whether this will ever actually be enacted is a hard question to answer. One thing for certain is that difficult choices lie ahead, but hopefully the outcome of such choices will be progressive and not be harmful to society as a whole.

References:

Bell, Michael. 2014. "Antibiotic misuse: a global crisis." JAMA Internal Medicine 174, no.12: 1920-1921. MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed December 7, 2015).

"Consumer Health." Antibiotics: Misuse Puts You and Others at Risk. Accessed December 7, 2015.   http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/antibiotics/art-20045720

Foster, KR, and H Grundmann. n.d. "Do we need to put society first? The potential for tragedy in        antimicrobial resistance." Plos Medicine 3, no. 2: 177-180. Science Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed December 7, 2015).

Hollis, Aidan, and Peter Maybarduk. 2015. "Antibiotic Resistance Is a Tragedy of the Commons That Necessitates Global Cooperation." Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, 33-37 5p. CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed December 7, 2015).

Terrorism

Article: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/08/we-will-eradicate-terrorism-by-enacting-gun-control-legislation/

In class we focused on defining terrorism, and why it is important. The FBI, The CIA, The State Department, and more all have similar definitions on what terrorism is. There is international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International Terrorism includes events that are abroad, that includes violence, and domestic terrorism is violent act that occurs in one’s homeland. Currently the United States is more concerned with terrorism than gun violence due to the international and domestic threats and attacks that have occurred. American citizens have been set on looking for ways to fight of the enemy, and they are looking to President Obama to help show them how to end it.

I do believe that it is important to encompass all aspects of terrorism when using it to define an attack, but since many different organizations have not met with an exact conclusion, it will be harder to find one solid one. In class my group decided to conjoin the FBI’s and the CIA’s definition on terrorism and it covered pretty much all aspect of terrorism. It is important to come up with a definition of terrorism because if the Security Council were to be faced with deciding what a terrorist attack is and what is not, they would be stuck with continuously arguing on what their definition and views are. And if they were to have an argument on that, then nothing would get done, and we would be stuck with half the countries saying declare war and the other half saying “look for other ways to fix it.”

In class we also talked about different terrorist attacks and whether or not they were actually terrorist acts based off of the definitions that were given. Obama’s address was one that rendered a lot of commotion. He discussed how we need to address gun control and why it will help to keep guns out of terrorist’s hands. Americans were not happy with his political speech, because they wanted to know an efficient strategy to defeat ISIS and how to declare war. Americans are also looking for a clear way to combat the terrorist threats, and they did not feel that Obama accurately explained how. The main argument of the speech made was that citizens should have stricter laws on owning a firearm. And I believe that the article summed up a really good point that Obama made which is “In Obama’s eyes the real threat America faces are people who take the second amendment seriously and learn to safely handle a firearm and defend themselves.”

There is also a debate on how we treat terrorists. People in one country could be declared a terrorist while in another country they are merely soldiers or freedom fighters. This is another reason as to why we need to fix our definition because other countries might view certain people who attack others as a variety of things. What certain people don’t understand is that if we want to stop terrorist attacks we need to first understand what a terrorist act is and from there we can move toward finding a way to stop them.

Particularism and Diplomatic Risk

            After having played Diplomatic Risk, my understanding of world politics as Particularist was greatly reinforced. The way I see it, nations are very much focused on their own national interest when looking to bargain on the international level. Some examples of these interests for the United States would include topics like oil, international trade regulation and terrorism. To begin with, the United States and the constituents of the government are very focused on gas prices, oil, as gas is very much an aspect of everyday life in the U.S. As a result, a major focus of United States foreign policy has been the Middle East. While the U.S. does have other interests in the Middle East, the amount of focus given to this region would not be nearly as large if oil was not such an important resource in the world. Furthermore, the economy in the United States, which has struggled in the past 10 years, drives much of the international discussion in regards to the United States. Citizens benefit greatly financially from a good economy, making trade regulations a hot topic for the U.S. To keep this economy going, the United States works to preserve its self-interest by keeping trade channels around the world open. A recent example of this through a particularist lens would be the U.S.’s decision to sail near the Chinese land grab in the Pacific. The goal of this was to keep open trade lanes. It is also an example of the U.S. focusing on its own interest and not worrying about the interest of the Chinese in expanding their territory. Finally, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York, the United States has been spearheading a “war on terror.” When the proposal for this war was proposed, the support for it from the population was a supermajority. As a result, the United States has been extremely focused on the ways in which it can combat terrorism throughout the world in order to protect its citizens, which is a paramount concern of the populous.

            Each of these examples provide support for the fact that the world system very much operates on a Particularist system. When playing Diplomatic Risk I saw this assertion very much reinforced. Each team was given an objective that needed to be completed in order for their nation to win the game. These goals were drastically different from the goals of the other nations meaning that it was possible for some nations to work together to accomplish their goals. Instead however, compromise did not come easy to most teams. Rather the overarching strategy, other than that of Team Black, was to be at war with those who had control over the “national interest” of their country and to then take what was needed by force. In short, this small scale example of world politics very much underlined the Particularism Theory. Nations will support their national interest first and foremost and in doing so particularize issues and groups, in this case the different teams, in order to achieve this goal, largely ignoring anyone who had a different objective or interest.

The Game of Risk

One of the most interesting things about the game of Risk that our class played was how each teams individual goals were actually very close to being accomplished. As a member of the black team, it felt very strange playing Risk without the objective to conquer different territories. This set of rules makes the game much more similar to actual international politics as most of the states in the world are not seeking to conquer the entire world. Rather, they are focused on achieving certain goals that are beneficial to them. The rules that were enforced as well as the different objectives that were in place for this game of Risk made it relatable to international politics as well as a way to see the goals of some of the states involved today.

For example, the goal to control the Ukraine is clearly comparable to Russia currently. They are seeking to establish dominance over an area in which they see as their own, but groups such as the European Union or NATO are plainly against that. In our game, there was two factions seeking to control the Ukraine, with both sides obviously not going to accomplish the goal together. However, the Ukraine was not held by either faction for the necessary amount of turns, so that can relate to the Ukraine simply remaining an autonomous state that is not being controlled by either Russia, or the EU/NATO. 

As a member of the black team, I think our objectives are essentially the objectives of most states. Preserve the way things are for our own benefit. War upsets the way things are going, and destroys not only human life, but cultural aspects of life as well. While the alliances we sought to establish do not necessarily stop animosity between states, they protected us from attack and allowed us to do our own thing while other states were busy attempting to aggressively expand. 

The schism within the yellow team demonstrates just how easily the international system can be shook, with that split making it easier for the black team to win, while simultaneously weakening one of the most powerful teams on the board at the time. While it might not represent a literal split of a state, it can represent struggle of domestic politics of a very powerful state. When a state cannot agree on the action it needs to take within its own borders, it becomes a lot more difficult for them to be powerful on a global stage. 

The green team sought to establish control of resources, which is very similar to the drive for colonies during the 19th and 20th century. So while there is a mix of time periods, the desires of the teams were representative of states at some time. 

However, while these do have their similarities with the international system, the game obviously is not the same. It does not account for some of the most important aspects of the international system such as terrorism, nuclear weapons, and economics. All in all, it was an enjoyable game that allowed a new way to look at the class. 

A Defense of Cosmopolitanism

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/

Perhaps my first motivation to become politically informed stemmed from my distaste for nationalism.  I respected the work of Orwell, whose allegories and symbolism revealed the silly divisiveness that nationalism produced.  I have since dreamed of a world in which our common humanity is prioritized over differences.  In a philosophical sense, I can identify with the tenants of cosmopolitanism.  In observing the world, I have noticed a paradox: everybody is the same, yet everybody is different.  This is meant to convey that humans have similar underlying interests, but each individual has unique genetics and experiences which shape character and personality.  It is a mistake to characterize people by national identity.  Distinctions like these, I believe, give too much credit to cultural aesthetics.  Cultural aesthetics and national identity become issues when people cling to them and become enemies despite sharing similar human interests.  Aesthetics become an illusion to distract us from unity.  But if a global community is to be achieved, doesn’t that mean that a common culture will be instated?  Does a global culture mean that the ones in power will oppress minority groups into assimilating? Not at all.  A global culture can mean simple tolerance, and perhaps a bit of apathy.  In a global community, an individual should not care how others live their lives so long as that group’s lifestyle does not negatively impact outsiders.  If a sub-group’s activity is impacting outsiders in an undesirable manner, a greater authority should assume responsibility of the situation.  If there becomes an issue of communication due to clashing cultures, it is best to simply recognize that there are different perspectives.  Cosmopolitanism does not have to turn into a monoculture.      

One critique of the United Nations is that it is an ineffective institution that wields only symbolic power.  This is historically true.  Powerful nations have generally been able to circumvent the UN if their objectives could not be met within the institution.  This is an issue from a cosmopolitan perspective.  In order to form a global community, it is necessary for an international institution to have the authority to mandate policy.  Much of cosmopolitan politics consists of navigating around the state to meet the needs of individuals.  The UN, as it stands, makes it very difficult to do this.  Thus, contemporary cosmopolitans have suggested that it would be in Earth’s best interest to move past a system of anarchy between states towards something more centralized.  Some people have even suggested a world state.  While I am certainly not in agreement with a world state, I believe that the status quo cannot continue for much longer if humanity is to survive.  The problems facing the world today are global in scale: climate change, overpopulation, lack of clean water, political corruption.  There is no longer room of a self vs. other complex.  Technology has advanced to the point that state rivalries have the capacity to impact much more that the states in conflict.  Nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy the planet.  While MAD may be a historically sound reasoning, every theory has its exceptions.  It is short sighted to assume that MAD will hold up forever.  The seventy years that nuclear weapons have been in existence is a short experiment in the greater scheme of history.  Will humanity be able to last 2000 more years with the capacity to destroy ourselves?  A global community is necessary if we are to make advances in neutralizing the threat of global destruction.  I believe in a system of layered sovereignty where local governments still have a large degree of jurisdiction, but a global issue requires a global authority.  I do not know how exactly I would like this system to look.  It is an answer which I will pursue in the future.

The Challenge of Defining Terrorism

         In this blog I will discuss specific problems of defining Terrorism. Specifically, I will analyze how the United Nations' definition has evolved over the years and how it still leaves room for interpretation and thus, debate.

The ordinary textual meaning of ‘terrorism’ refers to extreme fear. A lit­eral meaning is not, however, particularly helpful in legally defining ter­rorism, since many forms of violence, from mugging to rape to piracy, can cause terror, yet such crimes are not generally thought of as ‘terrorism’. Instead, terrorism is often regarded as a form of illegitimate political violence. Again, this raises immediate problems. Some political violence which causes fear is regarded as legally legitimate, such as killing under the laws of war or to restore order during civil unrest. Other political violence may be technically illegal but seen as morally or politically legitimate, such as the assassination of a dictator or rebelling against an authoritarian government. Disagreement about ter­rorism is not simply focused upon linguistics, but also basic moral, political and ideological questions about the legitimacy of using violence. Reaching global legal agreement on defining terrorism presupposes agreement about who is entitled to use violence, against whom, and for what purposes. In a world of diverse political, moral and cultural systems, this is no easy task, and explains why disagreement persists.

The League of Nations first sought to define and criminalize terrorism as long ago as the 1930s, but its efforts were undermined by the Second World War. Similar efforts by United Nations General Assembly in the 1970s were thwarted by the politics of decolonization and the Cold War. Whereas developed countries focused on non-state terrorism, developing and socialist countries emphasized ‘state terrorism’ by colonial powers, while often regarding national liberation violence as a ‘just cause’ that often justified ‘terrorist’ means. More recent efforts to define terrorism can be traced to a ground-breaking Declaration by the General Assembly in 1994, which described terrorism as ‘criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes’.

More recent efforts to define terrorism can be traced to a ground-breaking Declaration by the General Assembly in 1994, which described terrorism as ‘criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes’. Despite this apparent progress towards definition, there remain a number of contentious and unresolved issues. First, the UN drafting committee cannot agree on the extent to which liberation violence in armed conflict should be covered, and how far government forces should be exempt from it. Who is a terrorist thus remains unsettled. Second, the Security Council has suggested that coercive violence is only terrorism if it also qualifies as a crime under existing criminal treaties.

BRICS, APEC, and the Role of Trade in Shaping Hegemony Struggles between the West and East

Response Blog Post #4

Global power seems to be shifting towards the East. It seems to be that the future power will fall in the hands of eastern nations, namely, those involved in APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and BRICS (Brazil Russia India China South Africa). Earlier this year, China warned India that an economic partnership with the US would be a “zero sum trap”, because the Chinese seem to believe that the US is singling out, even pressuring, India to become an ally in order to slow China’s rise. Since this, China and India have reached a common ground in the East. In return for India’s support, China endorsed India’s push to join APEC. Now India is officially a member. APEC has contributed to the progressive reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade in the Asian Pacific region over time, leading to the expansion of economic growth and international trade in the region. This seems to be a foreteller of an expansion of overall power in the region, which means a decrease in the US’ relative power internationally.

            Is this true? If trends continue to follow a pattern, it could be determined that the US could be subject to losing some power. Moreover, the US is quite disturbed by the formation of BRICS and the 2014 trade deal made between Putin and India, and they don’t want India to be pulled into the Chinese-Russian alliance. India is already a part of the BRICS alliance. How significant is BRICS in terms of a threat to the US place on the world scene? Indeed, BRICS is very significant. The populations and the land mass of BRIC areas is enormous, and certainly China has taken over the lead of economic development. India has also had a development in skills, so this does have a potential in abandoning the use of the dollar, of leaving the western financial mechanisms, and this is a direct threat to the exchange of the US dollar. So, the threat becomes that there will be a trade relationship formed that undermines the ability of the US to control all the outcomes. Currently the US has a large amount of control, so it sees BRICS as a hindrance to control outcome. Therefore, the US will likely do what it can to break BRICS up, and reasonably so, from a Realist’s perspective, because the BRICS countries make up over a quarter of the world’s GDP, so they pose a threat to the US in terms of rising hegemony.

BRICS creates its own system of trade and finance for helping developing nations in which it doesn’t have to be reliant on the US. Likewise, the Chinese have been working deals with other countries in exchange for oil to cut the dollar out, strongly in South America and Africa. The basis of American power is the dollar as world reserve currency, because it means the US can pay its bills by printing money, so it therefore eliminates any financial constraint on the US. China is purposely and consciously trying to create a trade system in which the role of the dollar disappears, because that means the demand for the dollar falls, and as the demand of the dollar falls, the value of the currency falls, and that helps accelerate the loss of role of world reserve currency. The Chinese are doing this as a response to a threat they deem to arise from the US hegemony, and in doing so, they might be on their way to replace the US as the main great power.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/11/3372

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-organizations/asia-pacific-economic-cooperation-apec

http://www.russia-direct.org/debates/brics-and-west-partners-or-rivals