User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
In fact, I think it just flat WRONG !
AZ is just below "high" and they are dominated by the soulless Phoenix (about half the population), where everyone lives behind walls, one does not know their neighbors name, nor even what they look like, but what they drive. "That red Acura two doors down".
Meanwhile, Louisiana which has New Orleans, numerous small towns and several 100,000 to 250,000 cities with stable families with roots, ranks at the lowest possible rating.
At one of the Louisiana planning sessions, an interactive computerized feedback was set-up. One question was "how deep are your family roots". 53% had been there for 3 or more generations.
The greatest single factor in social capital is multi-generations living nearby (minimal mobility would be an indicator) with church/synagogue/mosque attendance a close second. That map surely ignores both prime factors.
I live in a disaster zone now and there are many expressions of social capital between friends and strangers now. If someone is getting a new refrigerator in the house, strangers off the street will help out, etc.
A single example. I am part owner of a rental house in the Lower Garden District. We were renting short term to a series of movie production professionals when Katrina hit. We rented our 1,100 sq ft 1 bath house to a flooded out family (at a small decrease in rent despite the VERY tight market). They asked after moving in if some friends that were flooded out and desperate for housing could move in, We said yes, and at no increase in rent. 6 people, 1,100 sq ft, 1 bathroom.
The map is, IMO, just another expression of anti-Southern bigotry, something for which New York is noted.
What is your basis for rejecting this data? The book is pretty good at making the case about social capital. Family longevity in an area is important no doubt, but so are many other factors - how do you explain why folks despite their long standing family ties to are statistically less likely to be involved in civic life? How do you explain the state correlations with outcomes?
Rather than reflexively rejecting the data because you BELIEVE it to be wrong, please offer an alternative interpretation other than regional bigotry.
Are religious tithes included in charitable giving ? (I know that local Baptist churches do not report their offerings to anyone). Is being a deacon or Sunday School teacher in the local church considered being a "club officer" ?
From distant memory, I recall that Mississippi had the highest per capita religious giving. Not bad for a "white" state.
Newcomers often join local organizations in order to "fit in". Those that already "fit in" by growing up there and knowing everybody only join if they want to/enjoy the activity.
I sympathize with your suspicious attitude. I'd want to know a lot more about the assumptions of this study before I trusted it. I think it's important to distinguish between cultures that are unfriendly to outsiders, but very protective of one another, versus cultures that are friendly and open to outsiders in a nominal sense, but wouldn't be willing to devote personal resources to aiding them. Small town rural America (particularly in the deep South) is at one extreme, and suburbia/exurbia is at the other.
I also doubt social capital is a universal function. It seems likely that relative demographic correlation issues are quite important. If you are a Baptist and can join the local Baptist church, I'd bet Baptist churches in Alabama are as good or better than Baptist churches in San Francisco, and there are way more of them to choose from. On the other hand, if you're a Buddhist, San Francisco is going to give you a much deeper pool of resources.
Then there is "bridging" social capital which emphasizes links between different groups and communities. A bowling league or a military unit can have the same impact of making people who would have never come together meet each other and build a relationship based on a shared activity goal. These bridging links are especially good at reducing intolerance and creating more mutual understanding.
We will need a lot of both to survive Peak Oil, IMHO
In the past Alan has claimed that the only cities worth saving is New Orleans, NYC and San Francisco.
This data puts Lousania in a 'bad' light, ergo the data must be wrong. Happens alot here. Harsh possibilites like violence over oil and population die-off are shouted down because its not an answer people are willing to accept, lest they are part of that die-off.
Same with powerdown. Powerdown leads to less work, less work leads to less cash, less cash leads to economic crash, crash leads to 401K sadness. So powerdown is an unacceptable answer also.
If Phoenix disappears, it will no negative cultural impact upon the citizens of Tokyo & Hamburg. Losing Los Angeles WILL have a cultural impact, but whether the impact of losing Hollywood would be negative is debateable.
This study states that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. Since this contradicts a lifetime of personal observations, it must be wrong.
The most likely cause for this "Sun rises in the West" conclusion must be anti-Southern bigotry common in some East & West Coast intellectual circles, with which I have a life time of experience.
One personal story. In junior high & high school, I would read "Science", a high prestige scholarly journal. I would ask my father about articles that I did not understand (and was interested in. Many I did not understand but ... :-).
One paper did a statistical correlation between tornado fatalities/reported tornado vs church attendance and came to the conclusdion that those that went to church more would "trust in God" and not take proper safety precautions in a tornado warning, I was aghast at the "conclusion". I could think of 100 other reasons why the fatality rate woudl change (as you go further north, there is less solar heating and tornados are weaker. Since population densities are higher in the north, and heating is more expensive, more homes have basements, etc.) My father, a Professor of Statistics. explained that the study was EXTREMELY faulty and the only reason it got by peer review was due to anti-Southern bigotry. One intellectual bigot wrote the paper and a couple more bigots reviewed it. Since then I have seen many more cases of intellectual bigotry and this "study" just reeks of it.
BTW, my father was the first faculty sponser of the Black Student Association when it was formed at the University of Alabama.
On another level, the anti-Southern bigotry is so strong that my sister has to change her accent when she moved to Manhatten.
Mostly, I'm wondering how this "social capital" index was derived. I haven't read the book so I don't know, but I suspect the author started with the states he liked then picked the data (club membership, education, etc) to fit. In other words, we see the high correlation because the author used those factors to create his social capital numbers.
I've created a chart showing the relative goodness of ice cream. Rasberry vanilla swirl is white, cookies 'n' cream is pale green, fudge swirl chocolate with chocolate chips is dark green in my chart. And hey, look at the charts showing the correlation between chocolate content and goodness! Must be related. Of course it's related because in my world "goodness" is measured by chocolate content. It's all circular and self-reinforcing, kind of like blogs tend to be.
I found this given some voice in a review at Amazon, and focused on it a bit in a post on my own blog. The reviewer mentions church affiliation shifting to mega-churches, which I think are probably a bit shallower than the traditional, older, smaller, local churches, but I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, I think it's unwise to throw the baby out with the bath water here. It's true, we volvo-driving, latte-drinking, elite northerners with our heathen atheistic ways, we tend to ignore religion as a social activity of redeeming value, and that may indeed be reflected in the assumption of what constitutes social capital. I think I'd have to read the book to really form my own opinion there. But even correcting for that, I think there's still a real problem being described.
It may even be that it's more just a problem for the left, for the "blue states," for the cities. Perhaps that explains some of the political weakness of the left, and conversely, the strength of the right, as social capital has dwindled in the cynical, post-60s left, and bloomed in the evangelical, post-60s right. Or maybe not, that sounds pretty simplistic to me...
The Kalahari San Bushmen have great social capital but I doubt many of us will be moving to Botswana soon. Social capital must be taken in context. I am a 6-5 white guy with a Wisconsin accent. Social capital is who you know what youre comfortable with and how altruistic your neighbors, friends and relatives are. I know some peoples relatives that Id rather move to Botswana were they mine.
And parts of LA probably have more social capital than other parts of LA...
Please do not overlook the social capital south of San Diego!
Mexico will soon be voting on just how much social capital they want versus how much investment capital they desire. The coming elections could be pivotal in determining future Mexican energy isolationism to sustain only themselves as long as possible, or welcoming foreign investment to continue fossil fuel exports.
Excerpt from Arizona Republic
------------------------------
MEXICO CITY - In the midst of Mexico's biggest oil boom since the 1970s, the nation's top two presidential candidates are debating whether to turn outward and open oil to private investors or inward by exporting less crude and giving Mexicans subsidized gasoline.
The question revolves around nationalist pride as well as pump prices, but the real challenge lies elsewhere: finding new deposits to replace Mexico's rapidly declining Cantarell field off the Gulf Coast.
If Mexico doesn't act quickly, the question of what to do with the oil wealth may be moot; in a decade, there may not be enough oil left to supply the economy.
"Whoever wins the election will probably put a radical imprint on energy policy," said Mexico City-based industry analyst David Shields. "This election is about ideology. You're voting for someone who's way on the left, or someone who's way on the right."
Lopez Obrador criticizes Fox's administration, saying, "The only thing that matters to them is selling more and more crude to foreigners, neglecting exploration and new reserves and, above all, abandoning refining and petrochemicals."
One thing that's clear: Business as usual isn't an option anymore.
Shields predicts Mexican oil production could fall from 3.35 million barrels per day to as little as 2.8 million barrels per day within two or three years, if nothing is done.
"The current organization and course of the oil industry in Mexico are unsustainable," George Baker, an industry analyst with energia.com, wrote in a research report.
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0618mexoil0618.html
If DIEBOLD is not involved in Mexican politics, I expect Mexico to swing over to Hugo Chavez style populism. TODers Westexas & Khebab should be keenly interested in the Mexican outcome as it can profoundly affect their export depletion theory in regards to the US and NAFTA. IMF & World Bank economic hitmen can be considered the counter-vailing force, but many Mexicans are aware of Lazaro Cardenas and his imprint upon Mexico's energy history.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I wonder what the US reaction would be if Mexico slowed/stopped the flow of oil to the US. Will the US go NAFTA on their ass? Will there be more resentment of illeagals coming across the border? Will it be even more of a benefit for those that do cross the border? If fuel prices climb in the US there will be more opportunity for labor in the fields to replace fuel in the fields, and the fat, lazy Americans won't do it. More work, more money to send back to relatives in Mexico to buy more cheap fuel.
I was in Mexico last week visiting friends and I took the opportunity of filling up on the $0.50/gallon savings for the return trip home.
The general trend is to move energy-intensive industry closer to the energy sources, so I expect American outsourcing to continue. If Mexico reduces oil exports to the US: that giant sucking sound you will hear is companies moving south.
Mexico is running into drastic water shortages: this alone will require huge energy inputs for ocean desalinization, then even more energy to pump it way uphill to the cities. Mexico City is at the bottom of a very mountainous bowl at 7342 elevation and home to over 20 million people-- imagine the energy requirements of pumping potable water over mountain ranges from sea-level! Any social capital starts with reliable access to clean H2O.
Northern Sonoran Mexico is a very arid desert like AZ: they are rapidly exhausting acquifers and global warming predictions indicate even less future rainfall. The two largest river drainage basins [Colorado and Rio Concepcion] are now basically dry washes at the river-ocean deltas due to upstream acquifer overdrafts. Check out this link:
http://www.sonorandesertconservation.org/laestrella-ld.html
Puerto Penasco, Mexico [called Rocky Point by the gringos] is only sixty miles from AZ border: fastest growing gringo beach resort town in Sonora. They are building skyscaper beach condos for miles along sandy beaches, and water usage is expected to double in less than ten years. Here are some images:
http://laspalmas-mex.com/_FileUpload/CL-5.jpg
http://www.si-mexico.com/condos/sonoran_sea_resort.htm
Millions of Americans are going to lose their investments when there is insufficient water and electricity.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Let's spin a story about why this may be instead of simply disregarding the results becasue we don't like them. Isn't that what folks here say others are doing in relation to Peak Oil?
I've read Putnam's "Making Democracy Work' -- which is basically how social capital aids democratic governance in Italy. Haven't read Bowling Alone so I don'tk now how he measured the concept in the US, but I'm familiar enough with his study of Italy to understand what moves his model.
-------
Note, use of volunatary associations is a relatively good one. As I point out below, when civil society is organized in such as way that it cuts across social cleavages that increases social capital. When it is organized in a way that reinforces social cleavages it reduces social capital between different groups.
If you don't like the US example, consider Israel and the Palestinians. Lots of in group social capital, very little institutions that include both Israelis and Palestinians. Civil Society in Israel and the Occupied territories is organized vertically, not horizontally.
-------
Social capital is basically trust. Do you trust other people enough, for instance, to trade with them regularly? Do you trust them enough to rely solely on formal political institutions in order to guarantee your life or property? If you don't think this is important, see Iraq today or, closer to home, post-Katrina New Orleans.
So what factors increase societal trust? Off hand I can name four -- population size, social diversity, economic inequality, and horizontal versus vertical organization of civil society.
Very simply, small populations promote trust as it is easier to keep track of everyone and how you have interacted with them in the past. Once populations get too big the large number of non-personal relationships reduces your trust of other people because you, obviously, don't know them.
---------------
Note, none of the big population states in the graphs above have a lot of social capital, but many of the smaller ones do.
---------------
Diversity also reduces trust because of the insider-outsider mentality it brings. Members of other religions/racial/ethnic groups aren't 'like' you or members of your group so you don't necessarily trust them as much as members of your own group.
------------
Note, tolerance is a product of diversity and social capital. Where there is not a lot of social capital but a lot of relative diversity you get intolerance.
Side note: This is a map of hate groups compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Notice a correlation?
--------------------------------
Economic inequality acts in the same way as societal diversity. The poor and the rich quite simply see themselves as different tribes. If you are rich it is easier to trust another rich person while if you are poor it is easer to trust another poor person. This problem is compounded if you don't have a middle class that in essence interacts with both, thereby serving as a go-between for the two.
Finally, the organization of civil society is important. If organization is 'horizontal' it cuts across the above cleavages and increases trust between members of very different groups. If civil society is vetical, it does not cut across group boundaries and, instead, reinforces them.
Now, why is the 'South' deficient of social capital in relation to the rset of the country? Very simple:
1. Relatively large populations.
2. Very racially diverse.
3. Lots of economic inequality.
4. Long history of 'separate but equal' racial animosity that kept groups apart. The Southern Baptists, for instance, was specifically formed to keep blacks out of white churches.
Why are the Dakotas rich in social capital?
1. Relatively small populations.
2. Relatively homogenous in terms of ethno-racil makeup.
3. Relatively homogenous in terms of economic inequality.
4. Probably (as I don't know for sure) lots of organizations in civil society that cut across what divisions there are in Dakota -- Churches, for instance, include both the rich and the poor.
Sadly, there are reasons. A big one is, California's a big state. But there's only so much you can kick a group of people before they start to bite.
thanks
The south may be chock-a-block with Churches, but if they serve to reinforce differences rather than cut across them do they really ad to social trust and cohesiveness?
There are lots of mosques in Iraq and lots of Mosques and temples in India. Do they add to social capital or are they contributing to social division?
There is, apparently, a correlation between whatever the author is measuring and crime.
Why did some white communities post guards at the entrance to their community that were tasked with keeping out poor minority refugees? There may be a lot of social capital within communities, but very little between them.
In times of things like unconstitutional martial law - historically the authoritarians are the last to be processed in the concentration camps. In some of these doomsday scenarios, most of the southerners might be better off avoiding things like volunteer organizations. In fact, members of any non-authoritarian groups in all parts of the country might be targeted.
Whether you are in Germany in the 30s or America in times of authoritarian power peaks, being a "red neck" is a form of short-term life and asset preservation. Of course, in the long term all such authoritarian regimes have historically led to the opposite for their people.
I agree Southerners would be one of the last to be rounded up by any government.