More deglobalization: Russia cuts uranium exports to U.S.

Last week the United States authorized the use of American-made long-range missiles by Ukraine against Russia which the Russian government says risks escalation to a nuclear conflict in the almost three-year-old war. The Russian government reacted by announcing an unnerving shift in nuclear doctrine. It also announced reductions in uranium exports to the United States. By how much and for how long, the government did not say.

In light of what can only be seen as a proxy war in Ukraine between the United States along with its NATO allies and the Russian Federation, it is passing strange that the United States still relies on Russia for 27 percent of its enriched uranium. Oddly, the reaction in the spot market for uranium was a 4 percent slump in prices. Most customers for uranium—primarily nuclear power plants—have stockpiles and long-term contracts, so an immediate effect on spot prices was unlikely. But the price of uranium mining stocks soared in anticipation of greater pressure on mine supply outside Russia, the world's sixth largest producer.

This development highlights a vulnerability among metal importers across the globe. When relations between a large exporter of minerals and a large importer of them goes south, the consequences can be significant. While it's true that the exporter loses some revenue, critical material and energy shortages can have large effects. Inadequate uranium fuel for nuclear power stations could eventually lead to loss of generating capacity.

Falling human fertility can't be reversed by cheerleading for motherhood

Elon Musk told the world three years ago that "civilization is going to crumble" without a reversal in the accelerating decline in human fertility. He believes decisions by couples to have fewer children or no children at all because of environmental harms such as climate change (which is linked, of course, to growing population) are wrongheaded.

In Russia leaders are so concerned about falling fertility rates that health agencies are offering financial incentives for having children and free access to fertility treatment while discouraging abortions (which remain legal). The Russian government even revived the "Soviet-era honour award called Mother Heroine, which recognizes and honours women with 10 or more children."

Other countries with low birth rates are also offering incentives:

In Tokyo, the rates are so low that the government is launching a dating app to help citizens find love and get married.

The Japanese government has also tried to boost fertility rates by offering up to a year of parental leave and even cash incentives.

In South Korea, the least fertile country in the world, Seoul is offering people money to reverse their vasectomies or untie their tubes.

That's on top of South Korean companies offering employees up to $75,000 to have children, and a government allowance system that gives all parents with newborns $750 a month until their baby turns one.

While demographic experts insist it is primarily decisions by couples worldwide to marry later and have fewer children that are the cause of this surprising decline in fertility, they ignore the more ominous explanation, declining sperm counts caused by toxic chemicals and unhealthy modern diets (which are, of course, laced with toxic chemicals).

Donald Trump and the impossible destination of Globalism (revisited)

Back in 2016 a month before Donald Trump was elected for the first time, I wrote a piece that I'm revisiting here. So much of what I said then still applies that I encourage you to read that piece. My thinking was heavily informed by a lecture by the now late French philosopher Bruno Latour entitled "Why Gaia is not the Globe."

Latour made the case that Trump's perplexing popularity could be traced to his ability to give voice to the anger and fear generated by the effects of Globalism. In fact, Latour noticed that the anger and fear were actually widespread and reflected in Great Britain's exit from European Union and the many right-wing movements in European countries that now are all too familiar eight years later.

I am capitalizing Globalism because it really is an ideology and not the "inevitable" reality that so many of us think it is. In fact, as Latour explains, it is an impossible destination. First, let me lay out a definition of Globalism by quoting from my 2016 piece:

The American food system creates chronic diseases; the medical system 'manages' them

The explosive growth in the use of weight-loss drugs is a supreme irony within a food system that creates the very chronic diseases that lead to obesity and a medical system that "manages" those conditions with no intention of actually curing them. In fact, "manage" is too kind of word for this setup for the truth is, medical treatment of chronic conditions more often than not just perpetuates these conditions and sometimes makes them worse.

I rarely do book reviews, but I believe Metabolical may be the most important contemporary account of the nexus between modern diets, chronic illness and ecological ruin. So, I'm going to give you a taste of what's in it (pun intended).

According to Dr. Robert Lustig, author of Metabolical, thanks to the food and medical industries, the American public has come to believe the following things:

1. Gaining weight (sometimes lots of it) as we age is normal.


2. Developing chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease is inevitable for many people.


3. Once a person has a chronic condition, it cannot be reversed and must be managed primarily through medication and sometimes surgery.


4. Cancer strikes mostly randomly.


5. Exercise can prevent at least some of these conditions or even reverse them.