Agenda 21: Part 1

In spite of divination from conspirators, Agenda 21 is not a diabolical conspiracy. Large segments of the world's population really believe that humankind is contaminating and ruining the planet. They also hold fast to the notion that the wealth of the planet is unevenly distributed and that it is up to the governing authorities to distribute the world's wealth equitably among its inhabitants. The Agenda 21 program is supposed to remedy the ills of the world. This plan exists in document form at the United Nations website (see below) and is available for all to scrutinize. Opportunistic political interests want to use Agenda 21 for their own purposes, but this article only relates to Agenda 21, the UN program. The following is my take on that program.

Agenda 21 is a program run by the United Nations related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area where humans impact the environment. The number 21 refers to the 21st century.

The text of Agenda 21 reads like the book of Genesis. It is full of grand rhetoric that translates into broad statements describing outcome much like the "Let there be light" statement in the Bible. The Agenda 21 lays out a wish list that will turn our societies into Utopian enclaves. The doctrine challenges every level of government from the highest to the lowest local level to formulate and put to task procedures that will change the human experience from one on the precipice of global contamination to one where we will all join hands and sing cum-ba-ya in a world free of anthropogenic garbage.

The goals laid out in the doctrine are laudable. But vague outlines of outcome are a recipe for disaster. For instance, who is in actual control of the policies? In order to enforce some of the goals, we would need a world government. There are references for local groups to 'get together' and express their ideas. But who makes the determination that an idea from these local groups is useful? Who would determine if an idea was a good or bad?

Clean Energy: The Agenda 21 document only outlines outcome with no roadmap on how to get there. It does not specify any of the details needed to implement how to do things. Sustainable rates of pollution are arbitrary so the document is no help to energy providers. I couldn't find a stamp of approval for any method of the generation of power, but research is called for to help develop green energy sources.

There is also no mechanism for funding these research programs. Whom do you think the document is referring to fund and manage this research? The answer to the question is obvious -the burden will fall on the industrial nations of the world. Who else has the expertise and economical strength to do the research? By making no specific statements about how we accomplish the high goals articulated in its doctrine, the economical burden of such research is not reward oriented but instead bureaucratic in nature. Incentives for accomplishing the goals specified are the goals themselves.

In case you are confused with my statements, the long story short is that the document needs more specificity than just fine sounding rhetoric of wishful thinking. The best way to educate yourself about what is contained in the document is to read it. You can find it here at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm. Not everybody will agree with my conclusions about Agenda 21, but by your reading it, you can draw your own conclusions.

Poverty: Who wouldn't like to see a world without poverty? In spite of the feel good rhetoric espoused by the Left, distributing wealth to the less motivated in the world does nothing to help elevate those people from poverty. In fact all that happens is the creation of a dependency that either has to be continued or risk a cultural war if it is discontinued. The Agenda 21 program does nothing to address the real source of the disparity between the haves and the have-nots and that is the motivational gap between the two groups.

Any group motivated more than another group will accomplish more and reap more reward than the less motivated group. The United States has been successful because of the risk/reward feature of its society. All Americans have the same opportunity, and those who take advantage of those opportunities reap the reward while those who do not, fall into the welfare basket. So to solve the problem of poverty, ways of motivation must be found so that an individual will use his talents to climb the socio-economic ladder. Those who cannot or will not motivate themselves will always be at the mercy of those who have.

Mid-latitude countries (Those countries that lie between Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn) of the world have evolved people that best suit those environments. In those perpetually hot, humid places, the inhabitants of those regions generally exert as little energy as possible to survive. It is not easy to thrive energetically in such oppressive locations. Skin color has nothing to do with a person's motivation. Skin color does however indicate a person's background to one of these oppressive places. Nature's evolution and not laziness is more of a factor in the low energetic output generally found from these peoples. Other than hunting and tribal celebrations, the only other energy expenditure is sex.

Do these traits disappear when such a person relocates to one of the temperate or colder regions? My answer is a firm maybe. You can make an argument for either side of the question. However, when questions of poverty come up, unless the goal is to make dependents out of these people, we are going to have to find a way to motivate them into helping themselves.

This is important because expecting an energetic output from the people of the mid-latitudes is a non-starter. Residents of the temperate and colder areas where the human body isn't punished for physical exertion do much better. Evolution provided those people with a different outlook towards expending oneself for gain.

These are only generalized observations but I haven't been able to find any persuasive argument to change my mind.

Reducing poverty in the mid-latitudes will require a thought process that accepts the idea that the technologies involved will have to account for a less energetic people. Large plantations do well because the work suits the lifestyle of the indignant people. But expecting them to create and produce products using the European model without strict supervision is not possible. Factories built in the mid-latitudes fall into disrepair and are quickly abandoned after the European supervision leaves. The same type of result applies to most European models set up in those mid-latitude regions. The indigenous people are just not genetically inclined to pursue objectives like the people from the temperate and colder climates.

Motivation for these people is not impossible. But the motivation should suit their lifestyle, not ours. The mid-latitude people need motivation if we expect them to overcome poverty.

Agenda 21 is anti-freedom. A fully implemented Agenda 21 program would necessitate an oppressive government to limit ambition and motivation. The government's role would, by necessity have to suppress motivation to maintain an egalitarian society. It is truly a frightening concept for freedom loving people.

More to Come-

Cheers,

-Robert-