Implementing Agreement For The Stanford University - Us Fish And: Fill & Download for Free

Since the day of its foundation in 1980, PETA has done a lot for animal rights.1980 : PETA is formed and organizes the first World Day for Laboratory Animals protest in the U.S. and the first demonstration against chicken slaughter at Arrow Live Poultry, which was subsequently closed, in Washington, D.C.1981 : PETA conducts an undercover investigation exposing the suffering of the Silver Spring monkeys in a Maryland research facility, resulting in the first-ever police raid on a laboratory.1981 : A PETA undercover investigation results in the first conviction of an experimenter for animal abuse and the first withdrawal of federal research funds because of cruelty to animals.1982 : PETA makes legal history by filing the first-ever lawsuit to become the guardian of animals used in experiments.1983 : PETA gets a U.S. Department of Defense underground “wound lab” shut down and achieves a permanent ban on shooting dogs and cats in military wound laboratories.1984 : PETA closes down a Texas slaughterhouse operation in which 30,000 horses were trucked in and left to starve in frozen fields without shelter.1985 : After PETA publicizes the gross mistreatment of animals at City of Hope in California, the government suspends more than $1 million of the laboratory’s federal funding.1986 : As a result of PETA’s campaign, the SEMA research laboratory in Maryland stops confining chimpanzees to isolation chambers.1987 : PETA stops a plan by Cedars-Sinai, California’s largest hospital, to ship stray dogs from Mexico to California for experiments.1988 : For the first time, PETA conducts a year-long undercover investigation at Biosearch, a cosmetics and household product testing laboratory, uncovering more than 100 violations of federal and state anti-cruelty laws.1989 : PETA persuades Avon, Benetton, Mary Kay, Amway, Kenner, Mattel, and Hasbro to stop testing on animals. Note: Many of these companies have started testing on animals again in order to sell their products in China.1990 : After PETA exposes the backstage beating of orangutans by Las Vegas entertainer Bobby Berosini, his wildlife permit is suspended and his show closes.1991 : PETA’s “Silver Spring monkeys” case marks the first animal experimentation case ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.The court gives a unanimous, positive ruling.1992 : PETA’s undercover investigation into foie gras production prompts the first-ever police raid on a factory farm. PETA convinces many restaurants to stop selling the vile product.1993 : All car-crash tests on animals stop worldwide following PETA’s hard-hitting campaign against General Motors’ use of live pigs and ferrets in crash tests.1994 : A California furrier is charged with cruelty to animals after a PETA investigator films him electrocuting chinchillas by clipping wires to the animals’ genitals. In another undercover exposé, PETA catches a fur rancher on videotape causing minks to die in agony by injecting them with a weedkiller. Both fur farms agree to stop these cruel killing methods.1994 : Less than a month after PETA supporters occupy Calvin Klein‘s office in New York—an action that leads to a meeting between the designer and a PETA representative—Klein announces that he will no longer design with fur, the first major fashion designer to do so.1995 : PETA persuades Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats have become trapped in them and been burned to death.1995 : PETA’s efforts lead to the first-ever cruelty charges filed against a factory farmer for cruelty to chickens for allowing tens of thousands of chickens to starve to death. The president of the company ultimately pleads guilty.1996 : Following PETA’s campaign, NASA pulls out of Bion—a joint U.S., French, and Russian experiment in which monkeys wearing straitjackets were to have electrodes implanted in their bodies and be launched into space.1996 : PETA convinces Gillette to observe a moratorium on animal testing after a colorful years-long campaign, including the presentation of shareholder resolutions at Gillette’s annual meetings and support from compassionate celebrities Paul McCartney, Lily Tomlin, Hugh Grant, and Elizabeth Hurley.1997 : A PETA investigation that documented the anal electrocution of foxes leads to the first-ever guilty plea by a fur rancher to cruelty-to-animals charges.1998 : PETA succeeds in getting Taiwan to pass its first-ever law against cruelty to animals after the group rescues countless dogs from being beaten, starved, electrocuted, and drowned in Taiwan’s pounds.1999 : Undercover investigations into pig-breeding factory farms in North Carolina and Oklahoma reveal horrific conditions and daily abuse of pigs, including the fact that one pig was skinned alive, leading to the first-ever felony indictments of farm workers.1999 : PETA conducts an undercover investigation into the Nielsen Farms puppy mill in Kansas, which reveals extremely small enclosures and rampant sickness, abuse, and death. Our investigation leads to the closure of the facility and a $20,000 fine from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Nielsens are also “permanently disqualified from being licensed” by the USDA.2000 : Following the group’s investigation, PETA convinces Gap Inc., J.Crew, Liz Claiborne, Clarks, and Florsheim to boycott leather from India and China, countries in which leather production causes immense animal suffering.2000 : After a campaign that lasts 11 months and includes more than 400 demonstrations at McDonald’s restaurants in more than 23 countries, as well as advertising and celebrity involvement, McDonald’s becomes the first fast-food company to agree to make basic animal-welfare improvements for farmed animals.2001 : PETA persuades Burger King to adopt sweeping animal-welfare improvements, including conducting unannounced slaughterhouse inspections and giving hens more cage space.2001 : Shortly thereafter, following a vigorous PETA campaign, Wendy’sfollows suit, announcing plans to change some of its rules regarding the handling and slaughter of the animals used for its food.2002 : PETA’s efforts lead to the confiscation of six undernourished polar bears from a tropical circus, in which they were underfed, whipped, and forced to perform in sweltering temperatures.2003 : Evidence submitted by PETA leads to the mandatory relinquishment of all 16 elephants used by the Hawthorn Corporation, an elephant-rental company.2004 : PETA persuades chemical companies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop plans for numerous painful chemical tests, sparing tens of thousands of animals.2005 : Following PETA’s campaign, Honda, PUMA, Keds, and other companies pull their commercials featuring great apes. Several corporations pledge never to use great apes in advertising in the future.2005 : Thanks to PETA’s lengthy campaign to push PETCO to take more responsibility for the animals in its stores, the company agrees tostop selling large birds and to make provisions for the millions of rats and mice in its care.2006 : PETA convinces Polo Ralph Lauren to stop selling fur. The furs were pulled from store shelves and donated to those in need in Mongolia.2007 : After uncovering cruel experiments funded by major beverage manufacturers, PETA convinces POM Wonderful, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola to end all animal tests.2008 : PETA elicits agreements to make major improvements in farmed-animal welfare from Safeway, Harris Teeter, and the company that controls the purchase of chickens for KFCs in Canada, which also start offering faux-chicken menu items.2008 : The Ad Council signs PETA’s Great Ape Humane Pledge. In 2012, it extends its pledge to include a ban on all wild animals in advertising.2008 : PETA’s investigation into Aviagen Turkeys, Inc., part of the self-proclaimed “world’s leading poultry breeding company,” reveals that workers tortured, mutilated, and maliciously killed turkeys. Three former employees are indicted on felony cruelty-to-animals charges—the first felony charges for abusing factory-farmed poultry in U.S. history—and two become the first factory farmers to be convicted of abusing turkeys. One man is sentenced to one year in jail—the strongest penalty levied for abusing a factory-farmed animal in U.S. history—and all three are barred from owning or living with animals for five years.2008 : PETA investigates a pig-breeding factory farm in Iowa and uncovers horrific treatment of sows, boars, and piglets. The manager of the farm is fired, and the evidence results in 22 criminal charges against six workers, all of whom admit guilt and are sentenced to serve up to two years’ probation.2009 : PETA’s investigation into animal dealer U.S. Global Exotics prompts the largest animal seizure in history—more than 26,000 animals. The owner flees the country to evade federal charges.2009 : After receiving the video of PETA’s exposé of extreme suffering in the trade in exotic-animal skins, Stockholm-based international retailer H&M becomes the first retailer to adopt a policy banning products made from exotic skins in all of its 1,800 stores worldwide.2009 : After nearly a month of intense PETA campaigning against horrific combat training exercises conducted by the Bolivian military—in which live dogs are shown in a video tied down, repeatedly stabbed, and screaming in agony—the Bolivian Ministry of Defense ends the killing by issuing the military’s first-ever animal protection regulation, which “prohibit[s] all acts of violence, exploitation, [and] mistreatment that provokes the death of animals.”2010 : A petition co-filed by PETA leads a court to determine thatUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison staff members may face prosecution for violating state law by killing sheep in decompression experiments.2010 : Following a year of vigorous campaigning, NASA cancels plans fora $1.75 million study in which dozens of squirrel monkeys would have been exposed to a harmful dose of radiation.2010 : After discussions with PETA, Japan’s ITO EN, Ltd.—the world’s largest green-tea manufacturer—institutes a new policyprohibiting all animal testing. Also after discussions with PETA,Lipton tea soon follows suit.2010 : Just one week after PETA releases the results of its shocking undercover investigation into Professional Laboratory and Research Services and files a complaint with the USDA, the North Carolina–based contract animal testing facility surrenders nearly 200 dogs and more than 50 cats and closes its doors. This is only the second time in U.S. history that a laboratory has been forced to surrender animals and shut down.2010 : Less than six months after PETA releases its undercover investigation into laboratories at the University of Utah, Utahlegislators vote overwhelmingly to amend an archaic state law so that government-run animal shelters will no longer be forced to sell dogs and cats to laboratories on demand.2011 : The USDA fines Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus $270,000—the largest fine ever paid by an animal exhibitor—for violations of the Animal Welfare Act after PETA presents the agency with unequivocal evidence of animal abuse, including beatings, the negligent death of a lion, lame elephants forced to perform despite chronic pain, and a baby elephant who died during a training routine.2011 : PETA blows the lid off Ringling Bros.‘ violent training methods when a whistleblower shares photographic evidence from Ringling’s training compound revealing how baby elephants are torn away from their mothers and subjected to violent training sessions so that they will learn how to perform tricks.2011 : PETA releases video footage from an investigation showing howelephants used by Ringling Bros. are whipped, beaten, and yanked by heavy, sharp steel-tipped bullhooks behind the scenes prior to performing.2011 : In the first case of its kind, PETA, three marine-mammal experts, and two former orca trainers file a lawsuit asking a federal court to declare that five wild-caught orcas forced to perform at SeaWorld are being held as slaves in violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The filing—the first ever seeking to apply the 13th Amendment to nonhuman animals—names the five orcas as plaintiffs and seeks their release into their natural habitats or seaside sanctuaries.2011 : After intensive campaigning by PETA, the U.S. military ends the use of monkeys in the Army’s cruel chemical-attack training course.2012 : All the top 10 advertising agencies in the United States—McCann Erickson, BBDO, Y&R, DDB, Ogilvy & Mather, TBWA, Draftfcb, Grey, JWT, and Campbell Ewald – sign PETA’s Great Ape Humane Pledge, banning the use of great apes in their advertising.2012 : After meeting with PETA, apparel and accessories companyHaband removes all down-filled items from among its offerings and becomes the first company to implement an official policy banning the sale of down feathers.2012 : After PETA donates simulators to Egypt, the country ends all use of animals for medical trauma training.2012 : PETA exposes disturbing video footage taken by a whistleblower during a trauma training session conducted by military contractor Tier 1 Group for members of the U.S. Coast Guard, which shows thestabbing, shooting, and dismemberment of live goats. Following an official complaint from PETA, the USDA cites Tier 1 Group for violating the federal Animal Welfare Act for failing to provide the goats with adequate anesthesia before they were mutilated.2012 : After two years of PETA campaigns and a lengthy lawsuit brought by PETA and local residents, the Supreme Court of Puerto Riconixes a plan by the Bioculture corporation to set up a monkey-breeding facility and sell monkeys to U.S. laboratories.2012 : By funding scientists to train Chinese government officials in the use of non-animal testing methods, PETA launches an effort to stop China from requiring tests on animals for cosmetics and household products. As part of its effort, PETA convinces cosmetics company Urban Decay to reverse its decision to sell its products in China, and John Paul Mitchell Systems pulls out of the Chinese market rather than having its products tested on animals.2012 : PETA’s exposé documenting that cosmetics companies were secretly paying for tests on animals in China and our funding of scientists to train officials there lead to that nation’s acceptance, by the end of 2012, of its first non-animal tests for cosmetics ingredients.2012 : The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission bans the use of furosemide, or Lasix, a commonly used drug that can mask other drugs and lead to horse breakdowns.2012 : The horse-racing industry implements its first-ever industry-supported retirement plan for thoroughbreds.2012 : After decades of conducting cruel experiments and just six months after PETA purchases stock in the company in order to introduce a shareholder resolution on animal testing, BIOQUAL announces that it will end its use of chimpanzees. Formerly known as SEMA, BIOQUAL was first exposed in 1986, when PETA released footage of chimpanzees locked inside tiny isolation chambers at the facility.2012 : After two horses die on the set of the HBO horse-racing series Luck, PETA goes public with information obtained by whistleblowers as well as necropsy reports from the racing board revealing that older, arthritic horses had been used in dangerous and deadly racing sequences and that the horses appeared not to have been provided with adequate protection. After a third horse dies on the set, HBO announces the cancellation of Luck and ceases all production on the series.2012 : After a long and hard-fought battle by PETA, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and concerned citizens, Ben the bear is rescued from abhorrent conditions at a North Carolina roadside zoo. FedEx transports Ben free of charge (dubbing the mission “Bear Force One”) to the Performing Animal Welfare Society’s beautiful accredited wildlife sanctuary in northern California. There, Ben will live out the rest of his days splashing in his own pool, basking in the sun, and rolling in the grass in a 2-acre habitat designed especially for him.2012 : After a two-month PETA undercover investigation documenting that thousands of animals were being neglected and dying and many more are being cruelly killed, law-enforcement officials raid Global Captive Breeders—a company in Lake Elsinore, California, that bred and sold reptiles and rats for the “pet” trade. This results in the largest rescue of neglected rats in U.S. history and the largest seizure of animals, including more than 600 reptiles and 18,000 rats, ever in California. Local authorities charge the owner and manager with a total of 223 felony cruelty-to-animals and related charges.2012 : PETA prevails in a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for illegally issuing captive-bred wildlife permits. This victory allows PETA to keep a closer eye on animals bred in captivity, weigh in on permit applications, and bring legal challenges against permits that are improperly issued to Ringling Bros., SeaWorld, Have Trunk Will Travel, and other animal abusers.2013 : PETA—along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, investigative journalists, a political journalist, a university history professor, and animal rights advocate Amy Meyer, who had recently been arrested for filming a downed cow at a Utah slaughterhouse—files a groundbreaking lawsuit challenging Utah’s “ag-gag” law, which prohibits the documenting of animal abuse at agricultural operations. The plaintiffs contend that this agribusiness law amounts to an unconstitutional attack on investigators’ First Amendment rights.2013 : After years of imprisonment in concrete pits at Chief Saunooke Bear Park in Cherokee, North Carolina, 11 bears were finally freed following a years-long campaign and PETA undercover investigation that forced the roadside zoo to pay a fine and surrender its exhibitor’s license to settle more than a dozen charges for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. After a private benefactor generously offered to purchase the bears, they were quickly transferred to their new home at the International Exotic Animal Sanctuary in Dallas, where they can now walk through tall grass, dig in the dirt, climb trees, take a dip in a pond, and just live as bears are supposed to live.2013 : Following decades of campaigning by PETA, the U.S. Army announces that it will reduce its use of animals for deadly trauma training exercises and restrict training for many military personnel to exclusively modern non-animal methods.2013 : After hearing from PETA that many sheep used for their wool endure a painful procedure called “mulesing,” in which huge chunks of skin and flesh are cut from their backsides without any painkillers, more than 50 national and international clothing retailers, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Liz Claiborne, H&M, Kenneth Cole, Perry Ellis International, and Express, state that they will use wool that comes only from nonmulesed sheep, as the industry begins to phase out the cruel practice.2013 : In 2013, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a bullhook ban showing PETA’s undercover footage of baby elephant training during the hearing. The ban, which goes into effect in 2017, is the first to pass in a major city where Ringling Bros. travels.2013 : Following PETA’s efforts to end dehorning in the dairy industry, in which calves have their horn buds burned off with no pain relief, companies such as Chipotle, Peet’s Coffee & Tea, and Amy’s Kitchen begin to pressure their suppliers to stop this cruel mutilation. Aurora Organic Dairy, the leading producer of private-brand organic milk and butter, is now breeding exclusively with bulls who carry the hornless gene.2013 : PETA’s 2013 exposé of Taiwan’s pigeon racing industry resulted in a national sweep of pigeon racing clubs. Police confiscated cash and equipment and froze over $4.5 million of apparent illegal gambling proceeds in two clubs’ bank accounts.2013 : Following PETA’s groundbreaking investigation from 2010, three pigeon racing organizers pleaded no contest to charges of commercial gambling—the first time in history that anyone has been held responsible for illegal conduct associated with cruel pigeon races.2014 : In the wake of the 2013 release of the film Blackfish and PETA’s relentless campaign against marine animal abusement park SeaWorld reached a fever-pitch. As a result, public condemnation of SeaWorld led to a tanking stock price, and the company’s attendance, revenue, and profits continued to plummet.2014 : The first ever undercover investigation into the angora wool industry showed screaming rabbits being tied down and their fur ripped from their bodies, leading to a ban on its sale by more than 70 companies from around the world including H&M, Calvin Klein, and Tommy Hilfiger.2014 : I, Chicken, the first-ever empathy-building virtual-reality experience—which allows people to view life from a chicken’s perspective before being sent to slaughter—travels to more than 150 universities across the US, including Harvard, Stanford, Brown, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, and Princeton.2014 : The scientific and regulatory expertise of PETA and its affiliates are consolidated to form the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. Accepted as an accredited stakeholder with the agency that oversees the largest chemical testing program in the world, the Science Consortium works with industry, private research facilities and governments to promote non-animal tests around the world.2014 : In a first of its kind, international exposé of the wool industry in both Australia and the US, PETA released shocking footage of sheep-shearers punching, stomping, and cutting gentle sheep—some of whom died and were kicked and dragged aside like garbage.2014 : After intensive efforts led by PETA India and with scientific support from PETA US and the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd., India officially bans animal-tested cosmetics from being imported into the country. PETA India rallied support from scientists, ethical companies, celebrities, and powerful Indian government leaders.

support for the creation of a now must figure out how to enact it. A prior nonpartisan analysis priced it at $400 billion per year — twice the state’s current budget. There appears to be no way to finance such a plan without staggering new taxes, making California a magnet for those with chronic illnesses just as its tax rates send younger, healthier Californians house-hunting in Nevada and big tech employers consider leaving the state.But Newsom is not alone. Other governors have made similar promises, and Newsom calls together the executives of the most ideologically like-minded states — Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland. What if they banded to create a sole unified single-payer health-care system, spreading risk around a much larger pool of potential patients while creating uniformity across some of the country’s wealthiest states?Fifteen end up forming an interstate compact, a well-established mechanism for working together, explicitly introduced in the Constitution. They sketch out the contours of a common health-care market: a unified single-payer regime with start-up costs funded in part by the largest issue ever to hit the municipal-bond market. The governors agree, as well, on a uniform payroll tax and a new tax on millionaires and corporations set to the same rate with revenues earmarked for health-care costs. The Trump administration has already proved willing to grant waivers to states looking to experiment beyond the Affordable Care Act’s standards — primarily for the benefit of those seeking to offer plans on their exchanges with skimpier coverage. But the states can’t act unilaterally: The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress must approve establishment of any compact claiming authority that previously resided with the federal government.Newsom pressures his friend House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi to introduce a bill that would give the compact all federal money that flows into its constituent states for health-care costs. Pelosi’s members from Arizona and Florida balk at the proposal, which they fear would enable their states’ Republican governors to gut Obamacare protections. But there are scores more from states looking to join the compact, and their governors marshal Democratic House delegations into a bloc. The bill passes the House, with the support of tea-party Republicans eager to strike a blow against federal power.When it reaches the Senate, the initiative comes from Republicans. In 2011, then–Texas governor Rick Perry championed a Health Care Compact Alliance, joined by eight other states seeking a “regulatory shield” against the Affordable Care Act and full control over their Medicare and Medicaid funds. By the time the Democratic bill passes the House, current Texas governor Greg Abbott has rallied more than 20 states, including North Carolina, Missouri, and Arizona, for a new version of the Health Care Compact. He also has the support of two prominent senators, Ted Cruz and Majority Whip John Cornyn. Republicans who had promised for nearly a decade to repeal and replace Obamacare can finally deliver on the promise — for 40 percent of the country.The president sees opportunity, too. While running for president, Donald Trump called himself “Mr. Brexit,” a boast tied to his apocryphal claim of having accurately predicted the British vote to leave the European Union. Now he’s convinced, thanks largely to a Fox & Friends chyron reading BIGGER THAN BREXIT?, that an even more significant world-historical accomplishment is within reach. Trump lobbies Pelosi and Mitch McConnell to combine their bills. Trump beams at the Rose Garden signing ceremony, calling it “the biggest deal ever” as he goads Pelosi and McConnell into an awkward handshake. Historians will later mark it as the first step in our nation’s slow breakup, the conscious uncoupling of these United States.Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same. The midterm results have shown that Democrats have become even more a party of cities and upscale suburbs whose votes are inefficiently packed into dense geographies, Republicans one of exurbs and rural areas overrepresented in the Senate. The new Congress will be more ideologically divided than any before it, according to a scoring system developed by Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica: the Republicans more conservative, the Democrats more liberal.Come January, we are likely to find that we’ve simply shifted to another gear of a perpetual deadlock unlikely to satisfy either side. For the past eight years, there has been no movement toward goals with broad bipartisan support: to fund new infrastructure projects, or for basic gun-control measures like background checks or limits on bump stocks. Divided party control of Capitol Hill will make other advances even less likely. For the near future, the boldest policy proposals are likely to be rollbacks: Democrats angling to revert to a pre-Trump tax code, Republicans to repeal Obama’s health-care law. By December 7, Congress will have to pass spending bills to avoid a government shutdown. Next March looms another deadline to raise the debt ceiling.Meanwhile, we have discovered that too many of our good-governance guardrails, from avoidance of nepotism to transparency around candidates’ finances, have been affixed by adhesion to norms rather than force of law. The breadth and depth of the dysfunction has even Establishmentarian figures ready to concede that our current system of governance is fatally broken. Some have entertained radical process reforms that would have once been unthinkable. Prominent legal academics on both the left and the right have endorsed proposals to expand the Supreme Court or abolish lifetime tenure for its members, the latter of which has been embraced by Justice Stephen Breyer. Republican senators including Cruz and Mike Lee have pushed to end direct election of senators, which they say strengthens the federal government at the expense of states’ interests.Policy wonks across the spectrum are starting to rethink the federal compact altogether, allowing local governments to capture previously unforeseen responsibilities. Yuval Levin, a policy adviser close to both Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, wrote in 2016 that “the absence of easy answers is precisely a reason to empower a multiplicity of problem-solvers throughout our society, rather than hoping that one problem-solver in Washington gets it right.” In a recent book, The New Localism, center-left urbanists Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak exalt such local policy innovation specifically as a counterweight to the populism that now dominates national politics across the Americas and Europe.Even if they don’t use the term, states’ rights has become a cause for those on the left hoping to do more than the federal government will. Both Jacobin and The Nation have praised what the latter calls “Progressive Federalism.” San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera has called it “the New New Federalism,” a callback to Ronald Reagan’s first-term promise to reduce Washington’s influence over local government. “All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government,” Reagan said in his 1981 inaugural address. At the time, Democrats interpreted New Federalism as high-minded cover for a strategy of dismantling New Deal and Great Society programs. Now they see it as their last best hope for a just society.Some states have attempted to enforce their own citizenship policies, with a dozen permitting undocumented immigrants to acquire driver’s licenses and nearly twice as many to allow them to qualify for in-state tuition. Seven states, along with a slew of municipal governments, have adopted “sanctuary” policies of official noncooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Many governors, including Republicans in Massachusetts and Maryland, have refused to deploy National Guard troops to support Trump’s border policies, and California has sued the federal government to block construction of a wall along the Mexican frontier. After the Trump administration stopped defending an Obama-era Labor Department rule to expand the share of workers entitled to overtime pay, Washington State announced it would enforce its own version of the rule and advised its peers to do the same. “It is now up to states to fortify workers through strong overtime protections,” Washington governor Jay Inslee wrote last week.In California, officials who regularly boast of overseeing the world’s fifth-largest economy have begun to talk of advancing their own foreign policy. After Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, Governor Jerry Brown — he has said “we are a separate nation in our own minds” — crossed the Pacific to negotiate a bilateral carbon-emissions pact with Chinese president Xi Jinping. “It’s true I didn’t come to Washington, I came to Beijing,” said Brown, who is often received like a head of state when he travels abroad. Around the same time, Brown promised a gathering of climate scientists that the federal government couldn’t entirely kill off their access to research data. “If Trump turns off the satellites,” he said, “California will launch its own damn satellite.”Brown’s successor Newsom comes to office just as Californians may be forced to reckon with how much farther they are willing to take this ethic of self-reliance. Since 2015, a group of California activists have been circulating petitions to give citizens a direct vote on whether they want to turn California into “a free, sovereign and independent country,” which could trigger a binding 2021 referendum on the question already being called “Calexit.”During the Obama years, it was conservatives who’d previously talked of states’ rights who began toying with the idea of starting their own countries. “We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it,” Rick Perry said at a tea-party rally in 2009, before adding: “But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that?” Perry’s lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, met with members of the Texas Nationalist Movement on the opening day of a legislative session. Right after this year’s midterms, the would-be leaders of the breakaway republics of Texas and California met at a secessionist conference in Dallas.In 2012, the White House website received secession petitions from all 50 states; Texas’s was the most popular, with more than 125,000 signatures. (A counterpetition demanded that any citizen who signed one of the secession petitions be deported.) Two years later, Reuters found that nearly one-quarter of Americans said they supported the idea of their states breaking away, a position most popular among Republicans and rural westerners.Liberal regions have tended to go bigger with their secession fantasies: Why spin off one’s own state when you could split the whole country and gain the resources and manpower of like-minded compatriots? After John Kerry’s loss in the 2004 election, a homemade digital graphic migrated across the pre-social internet. On it, the states that had cast their electoral votes for Kerry were labeled “the United States of Canada”; George W. Bush’s became “Jesusland.” After Trump’s victory, those memes graduated into op-eds, including from others who would have to acquiesce in the fantasy. “Is it time for Canada to annex Blue America?” a columnist in the Canadian news magazine Maclean’s asked last year.The fact that anyone with Photoshop can cogently cleave the country in two is a credit to the hardening of a once-fluid political map. Over half the states have cast their Electoral College votes consistently for one party in every presidential election since 2000. In 2016, those states all picked Senate winners from the same party as their presidential picks as well. But as three British geographers concluded in a 2016 article about spatial polarization, that’s not just a feature of the Electoral College map. Whether measured by county, state, or region, the partisan divide has grown since Bill Clinton’s first election: Red places have grown redder (at least in their presidential votes), blue places bluer. In 1992, 38 percent of Americans lived in “landslide counties,” which went for a presidential candidate by a margin of 20 percentage points or more, the Times has reported; in 2016, the number reached 60 percent.This partisan homogeneity is shaping state governments too. Thirty-six capitals are now dominated by a single party that controls the governorship along with both houses of a legislature; for the first time in more than a century, only one state legislature in the country, Minnesota’s, will be split between two parties. If we are already living in two political geographies, why not generate a system of government to match?Or so goes the fantasy. There’s no real groundswell of support for shrinking the United States. Surveys have shown that two-thirds of Californians oppose independence, and not only because the Calexit movement’s lefty critiques of Trump do not align with its righty origins. (A co-founder of the California Independence Campaign, Louis Marinelli, is a former anti-gay-marriage activist who last year sought permanent residence in Russia.) When a candidate from the Alaskan Independence Party, which had been founded with secessionist ambitions, actually won the governorship in 1990, he turned out to be tepid on the question of sovereignty. (Sarah Palin once attended an AIP conference, and her husband, Todd, became a member.) Local movements elsewhere, whether the left-leaning Second Vermont Republic or South Carolina’s right-leaning Third Palmetto Republic, have never transcended stunt. Among institutions, only the Libertarian Party has ever endorsed the position that states should be freely able to secede.History gives us few examples of successful peaceful secessions. In the ones we do have, national identity rather than ideological differences seem to be at the root of the fissure. (The Confederate States of America would have been a notable anomaly.) When states split in the 20th century, the Australia-based scholars Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic have pointed out, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity. None of the three multinational states created between the two world wars — the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia — survived until the end of the 20th century.Even with widespread fatalism about the American project, there is not an obvious way to dissolve our union. Rewriting the Constitution’s balance of power would require levels of political coordination that seem far beyond the country’s existing leadership. Chances of a civil war are remote, and it is hard to visualize a series of events that could prompt a peaceable dissolution of the union. After the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that states have no right to unilaterally secede. The U.N. Charter recognizes the “self-determination of peoples,” but clearly intends the latter to mean well-defined racial or ethnic groups and not, say, a collection of persons who want stronger gun-control measures. Other countries might be wary of recognizing spinoff American states for fear of the precedent. Would China vote to admit California to the United Nations if it set up Tibet or Taiwan to demand the same treatment?And yet, if the desire to secede were to grow, recent votes in Scotland and Quebec have modeled the way that secession in a developed country during years of peace can become just another political question — one debated relatively civilly, voted on democratically, without attendant allegations of treason or sedition. (Spain’s government has been less forgiving of what it calls an unconstitutional independence referendum held last year in Catalonia.)There is at least one mechanism by which a sort of soft breakup may be imaginable — and it’s already found within the Constitution. The document introduces the prospect of one state entering into a compact with another. States have created interstate compacts to maintain common standards, like the Driver’s License Compact that 47 DMVs use to exchange knowledge on traffic scofflaws. Most have been used for neighboring jurisdictions to handle common resources, like the Atlantic Salmon Compact that permits New England states to manage fish stocks in the Connecticut River Basin. (Eleven states have signed on to a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, to disregard the Electoral College, but it would require a number equal to 270 electoral votes to take effect.)Interstate compacts have rarely been applied to controversial topics. Yet to a paralyzed Congress, and a president without any deeply held views about state-federal relations, they could prove an appealing vehicle to restless factions on both the left and the right. It may be time to take the country apart and put it back together, into a shape that better aligns with the divergent, and increasingly irreconcilable, political preferences of its people — or at least to consider what such a future might look like, if for no other reason than to test our own resolve. An imagined trial separation, if you will. Or perhaps in contemplating a future apart we might stumble upon a few ideas for some new way to live together after all.So let’s return to our hypothetical spring of 2019. After Governor Newsom’s successful health-care deal, lobbyists and think tanks promote compacts for all their pet issues, and Congress — which would be unable to find bicameral majorities for any other substantive legislation — obliges. The Public Lands and Environmental Compact Act gives the states huge leeway to set environmental regulations and manage national parks on their lands, and the Labor and Workplace Compact Act permits states to draft new workplace and employment standards. There’s a Housing Compact Act, an Immigration Compact Act, and an Agriculture Compact Act, which allows the states to take all the money that would come to their citizens as farm subsidies and food stamps as block grants with the ability to set their own rules. Trump giddily signs them all.While the states could generate new partnerships for each policy area, they choose to harden their alliances. As they link their safety nets, the Newsom-led states agree to fully synchronize their tax codes so that they could end a race-to-the-bottom competition for residents and companies. Once they do, Nevada pulls out from the compact, unwilling to implement an income tax on its citizens. Washington, on the other hand, quickly amends its state constitution to permit an income tax for the first time.Seeking his own symbol of integration, Abbott unveils the new Free States Open-Carry Permit, along with new laws ensuring the right to bear arms in schools, churches, and government buildings across his alliance. Newsom and Abbott jointly lobby Congress to grant them the right to manage the Social Security funds generated by workers in their regions. Abbott wants to allow citizens to control their retirement portfolio, while Newsom wants to experiment with moving some trust-fund money from the Treasury bonds to new public-investment vehicles that will support climate-friendly technology.To kick off the Federation Era, the two governors meet on the steps of the United States Supreme Court for a photo op. Shaking hands, the men and their attorneys general pledge not to support any legal challenge to the other’s authority for two decades. All sides have an interest in permitting their new experiment to play out for a while without any unnecessary uncertainty from the courts. The states can’t stop others from suing over the constitutionality of their moves, but they want to send a message to a conservative Supreme Court that state officials are channeling the political will of 250 million Americans, all with Congress’s express consent.The most vocal opposition comes from fixtures of the Washington, D.C., Establishment and permanent bureaucracy, which fear a permanent loss of power. Both Fox News and MSNBC, on the other hand, herald the New Era of Good Feelings. For the first time ever, Gallup records three in four Americans declaring themselves satisfied with the way things are going in the United States — a supermajority that cuts across partisan and demographic divides.Over the first two decades of the Federation Era, the alliances remained relatively stable, with only occasional changes in state status. Virginia quit the Progressive Federation of America early because it felt it would lose leverage to defend the interests of the federal employees who live there. Montana nearly pulled out of the Alliance of Free States when it looked like it might be forced to abandon its closed-shop work rules to match its right-to-work sister states. Florida’s internal politics are driven by perpetual debate over whether the state stood to benefit by joining either federation; Alaska no longer has a Democratic Party and Republican Party but has entirely realigned along a Pro-Fed and Anti-Fed axis.The states that did not join a federation remained governed by Washington, where largely status-quo policies from the early-21st-century remain in place. Some are in the neutral zone, as it is known, owing to principled independent-mindedness (New Hampshire), some by ideological paralysis (Wisconsin), and some because they are happy setting their own rules (Delaware). Power, however, resides in the neutral zone. Since each of the two federations cast Electoral College votes as a bloc, by tacit understanding, any viable national candidate has to hail from the unaffiliated states. (After producing four in a row, Maine changed its official slogan to “Mother of Vice-Presidents.”) Yet with the Legislative and Executive branches largely hobbled from policy-making for much of the country, this offers minor satisfaction. It is said to be a bleak joke around the White House that the only job of the president in peacetime is to inquire daily about the health of the Supreme Court’s oldest member.By 2038, the Progressive Federation of America is being run from a former administrative building on the campus of the University of New Mexico. The federation was initially governed by commissioners appointed by governors and state legislatures. To avoid establishing a permanent bureaucracy, the governors refused to establish a dedicated base, instead rotating its chairmanship across the members for a year at a time. Lobbyists loved having the capital in San Francisco, were less enthused when New York decided it could boost the local economy by chairing its meetings in Buffalo.The abandoned campus in Albuquerque is an inadvertent monument to one of the Blue Fed’s earliest successes. The federation’s state universities initially integrated to secure basic economies of scope and scale: linking their library collections and banding together in search of greater buying power for their energy needs. After a few years, the states agreed to set in-Fed tuition for all public universities to zero. New Mexico took the boldest step. It dismantled its public-university system after determining it was more efficient to cover travel expenses for New Mexicans studying in California or Colorado than to manage its own schools, even continuing to pay lifetime salaries for its tenured professors when they were placed in jobs at new sister schools. The New Mexico regents decided to deplete the remainder of the university’s $450 million endowment to dramatically increase teacher pay for the state’s primary-school teachers. New Mexico’s public high schools are now seen as some of the country’s finest.At first, the task of the Federation commissioners was framed as simple technocracy, implementing the will of state governments. They strengthened regulations to protect workers and set a uniform $18 minimum wage across the zone, with some cost-of-living adjustments to raise the sum in New York, San Francisco, and Boston. Federation taxes have steadily risen as federal rates fell to cover its reduced obligations. Many wealthy Blue Fed residents now pay more in annual taxes to the federation than to Washington. The high-quality cradle-to-grave services those taxes fund have come to define existence across the Blue Fed, from guaranteed public preschool to lifelong medical coverage with no co-pays or deductibles, and have incubated a highly skilled workforce and some of the most impressive life-expectancy rates in the world. (Dental care continues to depend on a system of private insurance.) It was a source of pride when the Blue Fed’s generous higher-education system started drawing large numbers of middle-class families to leave southern cities for northern ones.As soon as one crosses the border into the Alliance of Free States, whether over the Wabash River from Illinois to Indiana, or the grasslands that stretch across the Iowa-Missouri border, the difference between the two federations’ sense of identity becomes immediately visible. A popular decal showing an outline of the Red Fed’s borders — with a column of prairie states rising like an extended middle finger from the clenched fist of Texas — resides on bumpers and car windows as a defiant declaration of a newly defined region’s honor.Over the first decade of its existence, Red Fed leaders found their purpose unwinding the domestic reforms of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama and with them much of the 20th-century regulatory state. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration all saw their staffs gutted, left incapable of enforcing whatever rules did remain on the books. An alphabet soup of government agencies, Bill Kristol tweeted, had become a savory bone broth.The National Labor Relations Board withered in the Red Fed, along with New Deal rules that blocked companies from interfering in employee efforts to win collective-bargaining power. The shift set off a return to the fierce business-labor battles of the Gilded Age, most visible in the emergence of new firms founded by Blackwater and Black Cube alumni, known as the Blackertons, that specialize in aggressive digital surveillance and online-misinformation campaigns against union organizers.The effective elimination of most environmental and employment regulations proved irresistible to manufacturers. Boeing announced it would stop making capital investments in its Seattle-area factory and begin to shift jet assembly to a new plant in Covington, Kentucky. Factories relocated from China to be closer to the American consumer market and avoid import tariffs. Unemployment in parts of the Red Fed fell below 2 percent and the region briefly reached 5 percent growth — each several times better than Blue Fed indicators — leading conservative economists to praise the Red Miracle.It was not just manufacturing and resource extraction that boomed in the Red Fed. As soon as the Blue Fed established its single-payer system, medical specialists began taking their practices to states where they wouldn’t be subject to the Regional Health Service’s price controls or rationing. Sloan Kettering now treats New York as little more than an administrative base; the majority of its hospital rooms are in Texas. Johns Hopkins considered closing its medical school when nearly half the faculty decamped en masse to Baylor. Wealthy Blue Fed residents willing to pay out of pocket now invariably travel to Houston when they want an immediate appointment with a specialist of their choice. The arrivals area at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport is packed with chauffeurs from van services run by clinics supported by specializing in such medical tourism.Auctions of public lands across the interior west, along with the privatization of the Tennessee Valley Authority, generated a quick gusher of cash. Vowing not to let the new government wealth create more bureaucracy, Red Fed leaders deposited it all in a Free States Energy Trust Fund that would pay out an annual dividend to every adult and child in the region — a no-strings-attached cash transfer of hundreds of dollars per year. The Southern Baptist Convention encouraged its members to tithe their dividend checks directly into new aid societies to help the least fortunate. The most popular charitable cause has been a relief society to aid religious conservatives in the Blue Fed seeking to migrate to the Red Fed.The boom in manufacturing and energy jobs on one side of the border and the guarantee of free government-sponsored education and medical care on the other created an incentive for families to split — with one spouse working (and paying taxes) in the Red Fed and the other, usually with children in tow, collecting benefits in the Blue Fed. (Remo, which pitched its app to investors as “Venmo for remittances,” became the fastest-growing tech company on the Fortune 500.) Sociologists are starting to worry that what they call the “split-family phenomenon” will become a hallmark of 21st-century life in North America, with its effects growing more pronounced as federation policies continue to diverge.Reaction to Blue Fed culture drives much Red Fed governance. When the Blue Fed opened a gleaming new visitor center at Yosemite, the Red Fed moved to privatize all the concessions at Yellowstone. The Blue Fed’s expansive affirmative-action protocols inspired the Red Fed to abolish all HBCU-specific education programs so that primarily white institutions could compete equally for the funds. After Illinois led a Blue Fed initiative to upgrade its rail service, the Red Fed ended all cooperation with Amtrak, even adjusting gauge size along the Mississippi River to prevent passage of passenger trains from one side to another. As a backlash to the Blue Fed’s net-neutrality rule, the Red Fed imposed the Online Fairness Doctrine, which permits internet providers to slow upload and download speeds for content they determined was in violation of “community standards” or that offends a company’s religious beliefs. Across large swaths of the Red Fed, the only way to log into Grindr is via VPN.These culture-war skirmishes instilled a strong sense of Red Fed identity, and the economy was doing so well that few noticed the slow exodus of tech entrepreneurs and high-skilled creative professionals who had once clustered in Austin and North Carolina’s Research Triangle. Only when the Supreme Court ruled that a compact-wide abortion ban did not place an undue burden on reproductive freedom because Red Fed residents could travel for free services in the Blue Fed did it become evident that conservative social policy would impede efforts to diversify the Red Fed economy beyond natural resources and heavy manufacturing. Amazon’s list of candidate cities to house its HQ14 did not include a single one in the Red Fed.Each federation is the other’s largest trading partner, but they increasingly assume the posture of rivals. When the Blue Fed imposed a controversial excise tax on all products or services generated by companies that could not prove they paid their employees at least $18 per hour, the Red Fed saw it as a de facto tariff on its goods. It retaliated by placing its own excise tax on domestic wine, which led the Red Fed to deepen its trade ties with Chile and Argentina. That was a short-term diversion, but prompted a deeper examination of how economically dependent one federation had grown on the other’s internal policies. A Blue Fed requirement that certain freight classes travel only by all-electric truck fleets had nearly doubled the cost of transporting products to the interior west. Frequent work stoppages by West Coast longshoremen emboldened by their labor-friendly administration affirmed a strategy agreed to by titans of Red Fed industry: They needed their own Pacific port.Red Fed leaders negotiated a deal with Mexican authorities for operating control of the Port of Lázaro Cárdenas, in Michoacán state, investing some of its energy trust funds. A new terminal, staffed by American Customs officials, connects directly with a spur of the Kansas City Southern railroad. There, nonunion laborers load ships with minerals mined through the American West, including lithium and soda ash, heading largely to East Asia, and unload bananas and smartphones from Ecuador and China heading for the landlocked states of the Red Fed without ever once passing through Blue Fed territory.And then came the first humanitarian crisis. When the families of West Virginia workers started overloading schools and hospitals across the border in Hagerstown, Maryland, the Blue Fed began to impose residence requirements for many of its social services. That didn’t stop the migrants, but it led them to cluster in border towns as they waited out the six months required for eligibility. The conditions were often dire. Tent cities around Palm Springs saw the first American measles outbreak in a generation, and in the Spokane bidonvilles, dozens of children froze to death during a harsh winter.Those tragedies set off a reckoning that has prompted an identity crisis for the Blue Fed’s leaders and citizens. On one side, fiscal experts say the Nordic-style welfare state that the Blue Fed has established is unsustainable if it just ends up as an unchecked provider of services to some of the Red Fed’s neediest cases. On the other side, some of the progressive activists who played crucial roles building early support for the health-care compact argue that the Blue Fed has an obligation to promote its values even beyond its borders. The debate rages across the region: What obligation do they have to other Americans who have democratically chosen to pursue a very different way of life?The federations had a gentlemen’s agreement not to drag federal authorities into their disagreements, but the nature of their conflicts made that impossible. Once the Blue Fed declared itself a “sanctuary region” and invited undocumented immigrants elsewhere in the United States to seek refuge, Red Fed leaders threatened to erect internal border controls on state lines. The Blue Fed backed down, publicly revoking its invitation, but only after the Red Fed agreed to jointly lobby Congress to create a series of regionally restricted work visas.The federal government remains the enforcer of the country’s citizenship laws, agent of its foreign affairs, controller of its national defense, and manager of its monetary policy. But it grew increasingly impossible to perform any of those roles neutrally, and many of the country’s democratic institutions were not designed to balance the competing interests of two geopolitical rivals.When the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to stop the Red Fed’s economy from overheating, it pushed the rest of the country into recession, prompting the Great Lakes to lead the first successful campaign to have the Federal Reserve Board removed from office. When Hurricane Rigoberto came through the Gulf of Mexico, leaving large portions of Houston underwater for months — the first trillion-dollar natural disaster, at least when the cost of the subsequent malaria outbreak is included — the Red Fed demanded a bailout from the federal government. Blue Fed politicians said it would be “moral hazard” to do so, given that most of the damage was traced to a Red Fed decision to privatize the Houston Ship Channel and entrust the buyer, a Qatari sovereign-wealth fund, with upkeep of the Galveston Seawall and the levee networks of surrounding southeastern Texas counties.The Pentagon lost its authority to act as a nonaligned arbiter of the national interest. Once cartels seized control of the Red Fed’s Mexican container port, taking hostage 17 retired Texas Rangers working on a private security force, the Defense secretary mobilized West Coast National Guard units to support an Army Rapid Deployment Force, along with Marines and Navy seals. Oregon’s governor balked, announcing that he would not permit his troops to “be used as muscle for the Red Fed’s imperial adventures.” The Supreme Court ruled that National Guard units had to follow the commander-in-chief’s orders, and the Oregon guardsmen headed south, but the incident polarized foreign-policy positions in new ways. When, months later, intelligence agencies issued a report pinning the crash of the western renewable-energy grid on a North Korean cyberattack, Red Fed cities saw some of their largest mass protests in years, all against a rush to war. Nearly 100,000 people gathered in Indianapolis’s Monument Circle, chanting “No blood for solar.” By the time of the South China Sea Crisis, Congress had grown so paralyzed along federation lines that it was impossible to assemble a majority in favor of any declaration of war.Leaders overseas have become eager to exploit what they see as the United States’s political weakness. As concerns about climate change have grown more dire, other countries have become intent on punishing dissenters from the international order, and the Red Fed is now a global villain. The European Union agreed to pre-clear for entry all crops produced under the Blue Fed’s GMO-free agriculture policy, while Red Fed imports are subjected to a lengthy and costly quarantine. China announced most-favored-region trade policies that would give Blue Fed exporters an advantage over domestic rivals when selling into the Chinese market.These trade-related conflicts squeeze Illinois, which wants to export Caterpillar tractors to China under favorable conditions but lags behind West Coast and New England states in transitioning to GMO-free agriculture. Although a founding member of the Blue Fed, Illinois at times felt geographically isolated, surrounded by Red Fed or neutral states. Illinois withdrew from the Blue Fed and helped to form the Great Lakes Federation, which stretches from Philadelphia to Des Moines and up to Duluth, with a permanent capital in Chicago. As the 20-year judicial truce is about to expire, the Midwest controls the balance of power in a Congress that may be forced by the Supreme Court to revisit some of its earliest assumptions about returning power to the states.There is another real-life contemporary example of a semi-secession: Brexit. It, too, began as little more than a thought experiment. What if we could reject a far-off governing structure that no longer seems responsive to our interests in favor of local authority that can more closely match our aspirations and sense of identity as a people? There must have been something thrilling about getting to cast a vote for self-determination.Yet those who are now forced to make that reverie real are pulling back from their former self-confidence about it. Just last week, the Tory official serving as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union admitted he “hadn’t quite understood the full extent” to which British commerce was “particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing,” and that new trade barriers could impact the availability of consumer goods in stores. Instead of just leaving Europe, as he encouraged his compatriots to do during the 2016 campaign, Dominic Raab now insists on “a bespoke arrangement on goods which recognizes the peculiar, frankly, geographic, economic entity that is the United Kingdom.”As it was for a majority of Britons, it is easier to imagine breaking up the United States than figuring out how to make it work — whether through bold new policies or merely a functioning version of consensus politics. The seeming inelasticity of our system of governance also guarantees a security and predictability that we take for granted. Some of the lessons Europe is being taught under the stress of the Brexit crisis — that a single currency requires a unified economy, or that a lack of internal borders can’t work if no one can agree on what should happen at the outer one — are ones Americans might better learn from fantasy than from experience.

I think “stress” too become a global issue in the future. Its ontinouously increases day by day. I share the references of great professor ‘s saying for future issues according mankind.Rob Reich, professor of political science at Stanford University, said, “If the baseline for making a projection about the next today is the current level of benefit/harm of digital life, then I am willing to express a confident judgment that the next decade will bring a net harm to people’s well-being. The massive and undeniable benefits of digital life – access to knowledge and culture – have been mostly realized. The harms have begun to come into view just over the past few years, and the trend line is moving consistently in a negative direction. I am mainly worried about corporate and governmental power to surveil users (attendant loss of privacy and security), about the degraded public sphere and its new corporate owners that care not much for sustaining democratic governance. And then there are the worries about AI [artificial intelligence] and the technological displacement of labor. And finally, the addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mindspace of the youngest generation. All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being.”Rich Salz, principal engineer at Akamai Technologies, commented, “We “We have already seen some negative effects, including more isolation, less ability to focus, more ability to be deceived by bad actors (fake news) and so on. I do not see those lessening. Sadly.”Leora Lawton, lecturer in demography and sociology and executive director of the Berkeley Population Center at the University of California, Berkeley, shared these reasons digital life is likely to be mostly harmful: “The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults.”An anonymous research scientist and professor said, “The grand internet experiment is slowly derailing. The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction.”Digital deficits: People’s cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, focus, creativity, reflection and mental resilienceWe currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity.NIKKI GRAVESAn anonymous director of one of the world’s foremost digital rights organization said, “I’m concerned that the pace of technology creation is faster than the pace of our understanding, or our development of critical thinking. Consider, for a moment, the latest buzzword: blockchain. Yesterday, I heard about a blockchain app designed for consent in sexual interactions – designed, of course, by men in Silicon Valley. If it sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. We’ve reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Nevermind the fact that a blockchain is a permanent ledger (and thus incontestable, even though sexual abuse can occur after consent is given) or that blockchain applications aren’t designed for privacy (imagine the outing of a sexual partner that could occur in this instance). This is merely one example, but I worry that we’re headed toward a world in which techno-solutionism reigns, ‘value’ has lost all its meaning, and we’re no longer taught critical-thinking skills.”An anonymous president of a U.S.-based nonprofit commented, “Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people’s real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries – energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership. The level of those with aliteracy – people who can read but choose not to do so – is increasing in percentage. The issues we face are complex and intertwined, obfuscated further by lazy bloated media and readers and huge established industry desperate to remain in power as cheaply, easily, safely and profitably as possible – of course! Those of us who still read actual books that require thinking rather than mere entertainment, must redouble our efforts to explain the complex phenomena we are in the midst of addressing in simple terms that can encourage, stimulate, motivate.”A sampling of additional comments about “digital deficits” from anonymous respondents:“We have less focus – too much multitasking – and not enough real connection.”“The downside is too much information and the lack of ability to manage it.”“Attention spans have certainly been decreasing recently because people are inundated with information today.”“There is increasing isolation from human interaction and increased Balkanization of knowledge and understanding.”“Over 50% of childrens, adults , everyone globally mobilised with technology now have some sort of social network-based application, whether it be Instagram, Snapchat or Minecraft. These children are always looking for what they may be missing online. They are increasingly finding it hard to be present and focused.”“The writing skills of students have been in constant decline, as they opt for abbreviations and symbols rather than appropriately structured sentences.”“Digital users who have not lived without technology will not know how to cope with utilizing resources outside of solely tech. With users relying on devices for companionship, we will no longer see people’s faces, only the blue or white screens reflecting from this effervescent gaze.”Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive.KATE THOMASStress on the environment, society and resources?Do large populations affect and put stress on the environment, society and resources? Populations do affect and put stress on the environment. However, some claim that overpopulation is the major cause of environmental degradation. Is that so?While populations no doubt are large in many countries, and demands on resources are obviously large, it is only one of many other causes and some of those other issues such as over-consumption based, unsustainable development may have an even larger impact. Our choice of how to use those resources (i.e. our economic policies) and for what purposes (i.e. our political directions and policies) are critical issues as well on the resulting impact on the environment to meet those uses and purposes.Some suggest that the industrialized nations need to drastically change their consumption patterns that are currently seen, as this is depleting resources more than the demands from large populations as seen in many developing nations.Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures - the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%.More specifically, the richest fifth:Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%.Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%.Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%.Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%.Own 87% of the world's vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%.Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) — Emphasis AddedMisuse of land and resourcesHow land is used to produce food etc. can have enormous impacts on the environment and its sustainability. (This can sometimes challenge assumptions on the instinct and common belief that we are overpopulated by sheer numbers and that this is the major cause of environmental degradation. While populations can burden the environment, it is the relative impact of population numbers alone versus why and how resource are used that we wish to consider here.) Take the following as an example:Junk-food chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradation, and contamination of water sources and other natural resources. For every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil. The water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per animal per day, or ten times what a normal Indian family is supposed to use in one day, if it gets water at all.... Overall, animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world's total grain production. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock.Economic policies of the wealthier nations and their consumption demands mean that more land is often used for less than ideal purposes, such asGrowing cash crops (bananas, sugar, coffee, tea etc) for export to wealthier countries (primarily);Diverting productive land for non-productive uses (tobacco, growing flowers for export markets, etc);Clearing land and used to grow things like cattle for beef exports. (Parts of the Amazon for example, are cleared for cattle ranches so the beef can be exported for use in fast food restaurants. Smaller parts are cleared by the poor who are forced onto marginal lands, or frontier areas due to poverty.These economic policies are often imposed on the poorer nations, through things like Structural Adjustment (SAPs). In the past, colonialism achieved similar things more explicitly, but today it is often wrapped up in complex trade and economic agreements. (One cannot separate geopolitics from economics and the environment.) For more about SAPs, see this web site's section on structural adjustment.Unsustainable DevelopmentAs globalization — in its current form — increases, so too does the unsustainable development approach that it seems to prescribe, as suggested by the following quote:[T]here is abundant evidence that the version of modernity demonstrated in current globalization trends neglects scientific evidence and tradition in equal measure — indeed, that traditional approaches to natural resource management in many communities demonstrate sounder science thandevelopmentdoes. One need only quote the inequitable and unsustainable share of the world's energy used, and greenhouse gases produced, by the United States to rest one's case. Tradition in local resource management elsewhere has survived over many generations precisely because of its sustainability. Global warming and other manifestations of environmental degradation — which are evidently no longer future threats but very real current crises — have resulted from approaches to modernity which, in sweeping such traditions aside, continue in denial about scientific evidence.Brendan Martin, New Leaf or Fig Leaf? The challenge of the New Washington Consensus, Bretton Woods Project, March 2000.In many regions of the world, ecosystem stress can be seen due to human-intensive activities such as unsustainable resource extraction and exploitation via large corporations and international trading agreements that open these sources up for excessive extraction and consumerism. This could lead to numerous future global security issues. At the same time, many businesses and individuals try to calm fears claiming that nothing is wrong. Major themes used for this are:To remind us of mans ingenuity to deal with any problems that may occur;That the resources are abundant enough to not cause a problem and even if they do, we will adapt;And that history shows that we have always come out for the better.Climate Change Impacts Human HealthA new UN report says that health risks related to climate change are on the rise worldwide. At the same time, coordinated international responses can help prevent some of the worst impacts of climate change on health.Youssef Nassef, Director of the Adaptation Programme of the UNFCCC secretariat, says: “the report clearly highlights the need for the UN and partners to continuously strengthen their actions to support governments to build climate resilience, including measures to protect human health.”It was prepared in collaboration with countries, the World Health Organization and other relevant expert organizations, under the Nairobi work programme − UN Knowledge-for-Action Climate Resilience Network. Below follows an overview of the report’s main findings.Climate change is expected to exacerbate health problems that already pose a major burden to vulnerable populationsThe report shares at least five major insights:1. Certain groups have higher susceptibility to climate-sensitive health impacts owing to their age (children and elderly), gender (particularly pregnant women), social marginalization (associated in some areas with indigenous populations, poverty or migration status), or other health conditions like HIV. The socioeconomic costs of health problems caused by climate change are considerable.2. Many infectious diseases, including water-borne ones, are highly sensitive to climate conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the correlation between temperature and diarrhea. A main concern in both developed and developing countries was the increase in and increased geographical spread of diarrhoeal diseases, the report found.Sensitivity of diarrhoeal disease to meteorological conditions. Source: Checkley W et al. 2000. Effects of El Niño and ambient temperature on hospital admissions for diarrhoeal diseases in Peruvian children. Lancet. 355: pp.442–450. Notes: (1) Section A of the figure shows daily admissions for severe diarrhoea at the main paediatric clinic in Lima; (2) Section B of the figure shows daily variations in temperature for Lima over the same period.3. Climate change lengthens the transmission season and expands the geographical range of many diseaseslike malaria and dengue. For example, the conditions for dengue transmission are likely to expand significantly across the globe (see figure 2 below)Changing patterns of infectious disease: dengue transmission. Source: Based on data from Hales S, de Wet N, Maindonald J and Woodward A. 2002. Potential effect of population and climate changes on global distribution of dengue fever: an empirical model. Lancet. 360: pp.830–834. Notes: (1) Section (a) shows dengue fever transmission in 1990; (2) Section (b) shows projected expanded distribution of dengue fever in the warmer, wetter and more humid conditions expected in the 2080s, assuming no change in non-climatic determinants of dengue distribution.4. Climate change will bring new and emerging health issues, including heatwaves and other extreme events. Heat stress can make working conditions unbearable and increase the risk of cardiovascular, respiratory and renal diseases. Additionally, it is estimated that 22.5 million people are displaced annually by climate or weather-related disasters, and these figures are expected to increase in the future. Climate-induced human mobility has a socioeconomic cost and can affect mental and physical health.5. Malnutrition and undernutrition were highlighted as a concern for a number of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, which discussed the impacts of climate change on food security, particularly in relation to floods and drought.While these risks and challenges are big, there are also many solutionsThe report highlights inspiring examples of adaptation solutions for health worldwide:The Climate Adaptation Management and Innovation Initiative of the Word Food Programme develops climate-induced food insecurity analyses and practices to inform programming and decision-making. The initiative focuses on16 countries across Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern, Central and Northern Africa.In France, the Tiger Mosquito Surveillance Network monitors the tiger mosquito’s movements.The Smart Health Facilities Initiative and Smart Hospitals Toolkit is being implemented through the Pan American Health Organization in the Caribbean with the aim of supporting the governments of the selected countries to assess and prioritize vulnerability reduction investments in their health facilities.Some countries integrate health into their national adaptation plans (NAPs) and programmes. For example, Macedonia and six additional countries are part of an initiative of WHO and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety that brings health into adaptation plans.There are also a number of training and awareness-raising activities, including the Self-Learning Course on Climate Change and Health, developed by Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health in line with the joint Pan American Health Organization/WHO Strategy and Plan for Action on Climate Change. The training aims at raising awareness and improving knowledge on the health effects of climate change among the general public and other sectors.To help scale up adaptation action in countries in the area of human health, various solutions have been proposed in the report that require actions by the UN and partners. As a part of the solution, the Nairobi work programme has developed the 5 step process below:Five-step process on health and adaptation under the Nairobi work programmeEffects of global warming on humansFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaClimate change has brought about possibly permanent alterations to Earth's geological, biological and ecological systems.[1]These changes have led to the emergence of a not so large-scale environmental hazards to human health, such as extreme weather,[2]ozone depletion, increased danger of wildland fires,[3]loss of biodiversity,[4]stresses to food-producing systems and the global spread of infectious diseases.[5]In addition, climatic changes are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually.[6]To date, a neglected aspect of the climate change debate, much less research has been conducted on the impacts of climate change on health, food supply, economic growth, migration, security, societal change, and public goods, such as drinking water, than on the geophysical changes related to global warming. Human impacts can be both negative and positive. Climatic changes in Siberia, for instance, are expected to improve food production and local economic activity, at least in the short to medium term. Whereas, Bangladesh has experienced an increase in climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria, dengue, childhood diarrhoea, and pneumonia, among vulnerable communities.[7]Numerous studies suggest, however, that the current and future impacts of climate change on human society are and will continue to be overwhelmingly negative.[8][9]The majority of the adverse effects of climate change are experienced by poor and low-income communities around the world, who have much higher levels of vulnerability to environmental determinants of health, wealth and other factors, and much lower levels of capacity available for coping with environmental change. A report on the global human impact of climate change published by the Global Humanitarian Forum in 2009, estimated more than 300,000 deaths and about $125 billion in economic losses each year, and indicating that most climate change induced mortality is due to worsening floods and droughts in developing countrieslinks for reference for stress will be globally future riskhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-big-questions-about-the-future-of-humanity/Earth as humans’ habitat: global climate change and the health of populations