"May you live in interesting times."
Described as a Chinese curse, there is no direct evidence this saying originates in China. It first appeared in the mid-1930s attributed to Austen Chamberlain, son of British politician and diplomat Joseph Chamberlain.
The curse is supposed to be taken ironically. It is better to live in times of peace and tranquility than turbulence and chaos even though they might be more "interesting" times.
We are definitely living in interesting times. I would argue my entire life has occurred in a never-ending series of interesting times. Whether it was the Vietnam War in the sixties and seventies, the Cold War between the "east" and the "west" (or the USSR and NATO) which lasted from the early 1950s to the late 1980s (and beyond), the subsequent wars in satellite states and the Middle East, and the most recent conflicts in Syria, the world has simmered at a low boil for the past 50 years.
The general level of anxiety pervading world politics has been dominated by the constant threat of nuclear war. Gone are the days of practicing for a potential bomb by ducking under a desk but the threat someone might pull the trigger remains real. And we now teach children to hide under their desks at the first signs of an earthquake. In the United States, school children are being taught to use their desks as protection against mass murderers. Interesting times.
Over the past 50 years, we have seen financial crisis after crisis. Oil prices skyrocketed in the 1970s with the rise of OPEC and the demise of conventional domestic production in the lower 48. The United States' economy went into recession as it adjusted to a new world market. While the rest of the world saw gas prices climb to new heights, the Free Trade Agreement was struck guaranteeing Americans unfettered and perpetual access to Canadian petroleum.
A little off the topic but I find it interesting there are now commercials on television by the Alberta Government pointing out the Trans-Canada Mountain pipeline won't result in increased production of fossil fuels. Rather, we will be able to "sell to foreign markets at a better price." Clearly whoever wrote the advertisement hasn't read the NAFTA!
In any case, fossil fuels are a self-limiting proposition. The development of hydraulic fracturing has opened up some old fields providing access to oil shale beds, but eventually these fuels will run out. And with the climate changing as rapidly as it is, the question remains will we run out of fossil fuels before or after we have changed the planet in irreparable ways?
It is clear the Great Barrier Reef and other reefs are under stress and in danger of collapsing. With the loss of habitat, whole species of fish will go extinct, taking with them their predator species.
In the meantime, the human population has bloomed to absurd levels stressing resources both on land and in the sea. It is easy to observe Amazonian jungles being converted to fields; much harder to see the collapse of the 17 great fisheries around the world. But this year, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists are expecting to see way fewer returning salmon than predicted four years ago. Interesting times.
The last 50 years has seen the effects of runaway human population growth on the carrying capacity of the planet. If you believe the planet's resources are infinite, then we can just keep doing what we do. But if you recognize there are only so many atoms and molecules on the planet, we can't keep going the way we are going.
One of the premises behind the "free market" is unlimited resources. There is always more of anything a business or people need. As we are seeing in many instances, this is not the case. Some resources are limited. Some will actually run out and the consequences will be dire.
The other premise behind a free market is free trade. Or, put another way, the absence of tariffs. Essentially, a tariff is put in place to protect a domestic industry from external competition. It should adjust the price of a product - say, for example, aluminum - produced in a foreign country to the same costs for domestic production of aluminum. The result is described as a "more level playing field".
But who ends up paying? Not the manufacturers as they simply pass on the price increase to the consumer. Not the government as tariffs are a good source of revenue. It is the consumers who end up paying for tariffs. They lose either the ability to buy cheaper material or foreign products.
For past 50 years, countries have been working towards liberalization of trade and more harmonious relations. And now The Donald is ripping up the system - climate, economic, NATO.
Yes, we live in interesting times.
