Parag Khanna's Crystal Ball is a Globe

Fantastic. Just came across this at the atlas(t) blog. It's the mappiest TED talk ever:



It's Parag Khanna, who has the very important-sounding title of Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, talking about political geography. He uses lots of maps to illustrate the most salient changes that are going on in the global order today. One focus is on the expanding profile of China, which is touched with perhaps just a tinge of Sinophobia - Khanna suggests that Siberia may be a remote region of China, rather than Russia, before too long, and raises the specter of a sort of fifth column of ethnic Chinese working their way up the ladders of economic power in various foreign countries throughout East Asia.

Khanna also discusses Iraq - he's keen to let Kurdistan go indie, claiming that Iraq would still be the second largest oil producer in the world (though I think he might be forgetting about Russia, and the US as well, for that matter). He also suggests the Palestinians' problems could be solved by infrastructure development. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume that he would make a more nuanced argument if time permitted.

Looking eastward, he sees the development of the energy resources in Central Asia and the Caucasus as leading towards a new, decidedly more carbon-oriented, Silk Road for the 21st Century. Most intriguing is his discussion of the future of Europe. He sees it as growing (which the EU has been, of course, for decades); in particular, he sees further regions of Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East moving increasingly into the orbit of what he variously calls the European "zone of peace" or the "Euro-Turkish superpower."

Khanna also raises the prospect of several new countries coming into the world in the next few years. All very interesting stuff.

More on the Happy Planet Index

As promised, here's more on the Happy Planet Index. This is from their map of Europe (note that it uses a different scale than the world map for the sake of intra-regional comparison):



Note that the European HPI is calculated differently than the world HPI: the Euro version uses carbon footprint as the denominator in the index, whereas the global HPI uses overal ecological footprint (details here). (And can I make a modest suggestion to the folks at the New Economics Foundation? If you have two indexes - one for Europe and another for the world - that don't use the same variables, perhaps you shouldn't use the same name for those two indexes.) As is just about always the case, the Scandinavians lead the way, followed by Italy, Spain, and a few others. (Presumably they aren't leaders in a global sense, though; Europe, though thriftier than the US, still consumes a lot by global standards.)

Now back to the global HPI. As I mentioned in the previous post, I like the concept behind this index. As with the Human Development Index, it seeks to take a broader measure of well-being than can be obtained by simply looking at cumulative economic activity. In particular, it assigns a value to ecosystems and the life of the planet which, being that which sustains us, is of some importance. Another way to put this is that the HPI is an economic indicator which incorporates certain external costs - the costs of economic activity which are not paid by those directly involved in a given transaction. Economists - especially those legions that have come out of the University of Chicago - for some reason tend to be incredibly myopic about such things. I don't know why; I guess they find mathematical models more elegant than the real world, with all its knotty complications, but those models don't do so well at taking into account the big picture - the social and environmental consequences of economic activity.

So I appreciate the effort here. But at first glance some of the results seemed counter-intuitive, e.g., the "happiest planet" countries being located in Central America. As a commenter said in the previous post, "The real question is Mexico. American companies move to Mexico to avoid our environmental laws, most Mexicans are quite poor, and while the government isn't necessarily mistreating them, drug cartels evidently are, but Mexico is ecologically efficient?" My concerns were along similar lines - it seems that these countries are subject to considerable ecological exploitation. But actually, the HPI accounts for this in their measure of ecological footprint:

The ecological footprint measures how much land area is required to sustain a given population at present levels of consumption, technological development and resource efficiency, and is expressed in global-average hectares (gha). The largest component elements of Footprint are the land used to grow food, trees and biofuels, areas of ocean used for fishing, and ­ most importantly ­ the land required to support the plant life needed to absorb and sequester CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

Footprint takes account of the fact that in a global economy people consume resources and ecological services from all over the world. Therefore, a Chiquita plantation in Costa Rica will not count towards Costa Rica’s Footprint, but rather towards the Footprint of those countries where the bananas are consumed. For this reason, a country’s Footprint can be significantly larger than its actual biocapacity. The Footprint of a country is thus best understood as a measure of its consumption, and its worldwide environmental impact.

That seems sensible. And it helps to explain the situation for countries like Mexico, where the ecological costs of a lot of industrial and agricultural activity are borne by the US and Canada (as far as the HPI is concerned, at least!), Mexico's NAFTA buddies which are the destination for the lion's share of Mexican goods. But this means that the maps of HPI aren't reflective of the ecological health or sustainability of practices in a country; they're more like a measure of countries' responsibility for ecological costs (which in the real world may often be borne in countries with some of the highest HPI scores).

And for all that, most of the low-consuming countries of Africa still score very low on the HPI:



Not only do they not consume much, their consumption contributes disproportionately little to their life expectancy and well-being.

More Human Evolution Maps

Love this graphic from Mike Rosulek. He has a few other designs, too. And they're purchasable - you can buy the t-shirt! He's donating revenues from the sales to the NCSE, which is committed to "defending the teaching of evolution in public schools." Of course, if you're a creationist, you might try something else... maybe a portrait of Jesus Christ with the title "Maverick"? Hmm, that could probably sell, come to think of it. Maybe I ought to open a Zazzle account...

Anyways, to the maps. These again come from from the Washington Post via Kelso's Corner: a graphic, put together by Patterson Clark, recounting some of the changes in the human genotype over the past few thousand years. It ran on Darwin's birthday, according to KC, though this might be an intricate deception as I can't actually find the link at the Post's website. Regardless, the maps are pretty interesting.









There's more at Kelso's Corner, including a map showing the evolution of lactose tolerance.

The Lactose Tolerance Map of Europe

More European genetics! This was published in Nature. Don't worry about the top map. The middle one shows genetic diversity in the milk-producing genes of European cattle. The bottom one shows the geographic distribution of lactose tolerance in Europe. Darker shades of orange indicate greater diversity.

So why is this so interesting? Because the high level of genetic diversity in north-central European cattle is an indication that that's where cattle have been around the longest: that's the area where their genes have had the most time to diversify, like an old tree whose branches have had a lot of time to spread out. And see that dashed black line in the bottom map? That indicates the area where the fossil record shows that people have been herding cattle the longest. So the genetic record and the archaeological record really strongly agree: cattle have been around for a long time in north-central Europe and southern Scandinavia.

Now look at the bottom map - the one that shows lactose tolerance in the human population. Of course, all humans digest milk as babies. But it's only thanks to some relatively new genes that many of us are able to digest milk as adults. These are the genes that make us lactose tolerant. And where are those genes concentrated? In almost the exact same area as the oldest European cattle! In other words, Europeans have evolved to be able to drink milk in just those areas where that adaptation has been most advantageous.

Those original cattle herders - the Funnel Beaker culture - established themselves aroundd 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. So, as with skin color, we're not talking about a real long time in which these evolutionary changes have occurred. Nonetheless, the population today in The Netherlands and Sweden is more than 99% lactose tolerant.

Europe isn't even the only place lactose tolerance evolved. It's happened even more recently in Africa, among three distinct populations in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as Sudan, and as recently as 2,700 years ago. (No word on lactose tolerance in India, but given that they eat a lot of dairy and have had domesticated cows the longest, there's probably some interesting genetic history there as well.)

Human Footprint: Africa

Here's another human footprint map. This one's of Africa:



The level of detail on this National Geographic map is really astonishing. It's actually quite beautiful, but it elicits - in me, at least - a certain degree of despair.