Bleak picture of the future? Well, it certainly doesn't need to be. And whether the glass is half-empty or half-full is not the problem. It's the contents of the glass that I wonder about.

BEWARE!! Here followeth a mighty screed!!

I have no quarrel with making a profit, Doug. Lord knows, I'm as selfish and greedy as the next person, but I, at least, realize that no matter how much wealth I may have at my disposal, I can only spend so much money before I run out of places to park my BMWs, yachts, and Lear jets (and even though I have four very nice guitars, I have yet to master the art of playing more than one at a time). And I am cursed with a conscience when it comes to piling up my own surplus by screwing other people. I truly believe that the vast majority of businessmen are honest, ethical people with fully active consciences. But all you need to do is look at the 6:00 o'clock news to know that there is a substantial number who can't be trusted to occupy a position of responsibility without attempting to use it to feather their own nests by ripping off hundreds of thousands of people who can ill afford it. The Enron and WorldCom felons didn't steal people's investments and pensions to increase the profits of the company (which certainly would have been evil enough), they did it for personal profit—to the tune of multi-billions of dollars. While the SEC (charged with overseeing this sort of thing) and the government in general sat around with their thumbs up their butts!

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. A business has to make a profit or it won't continue to exist to provide the goods and services that people want and need. But when the only motive that drives an endeavor is profit, it leads to some pretty sick consequences. And for those with eyes to see, there is plenty of it out there. A few examples for your consideration (I'll use my observations of Seattle, but Seattle is in no way unique in these matters. These manifestations of "profit is all that matters" are country-wide):—

Air pollution, especially in the cities, is getting worse. I live in a city that used to have just about the freshest air in the country, cleansed by North Pacific breezes. But within recent years, all Seattle needs is a week or two of warm weather, fairly calm wind, and a temperature inversion (which is a common meteorological phenomenon in this area), and the air gets brown and hazy, smells stale and slightly tinged with exhaust fumes, and people start coughing a lot. Asthma and respiratory problems are on the increase. So don't try to tell me it's not getting worse, or that it's "controversial." Automobile manufacturers could build small automobiles that use less gasoline, or they could manufacture electric cars or cars powered by fuel cells. The technology exists. Some of Seattle's buses run on natural gas. And this would reduce America's need for foreign oil, which, in turn, would have an amazing effect on our current foreign policy. But gas-guzzling SUVs are more profitable, for both the auto manufacturers and the oil companies.

I lived the first nine years of my life in the Los Angeles area. Look into the history of the excellent light-rail system that Greater Los Angeles had back in the Thirties. You could get from LA to Pasadena or Long Beach or anywhere else quickly and inexpensively on the interurban rail system, and once there, the light-rail "streetcars" made it easy to get anywhere you wanted to go. My dad commuted to work that way. But the automobile manufacturers and the oil companies got together and talked the local legislature into ripping up the tracks and building freeways instead, because the automobile and high-speed freeways were "the wave of the future." The Interurban was low-maintenance, cheap transportation for everyone. But tearing it up in favor of a freeway system was highly profitable for the auto manufacturers and the oil companies.

Long ago Seattle recognized the need for a good mass-transit system, especially when the freeways got so clogged you sometimes spent most of your commuting time sitting immobile and staring at the rear bumper in front of you (while breathing exhaust fumes). A battle between monorail and light-rail has been going on for decades while people sit immobile on the freeways. Monorail, which is relatively inexpensive, doesn't require vast amounts of property to be condemned to make room for it, can climb steeper grades than ground rail (Seattle is fairly hilly), will travel above the existing streets, and can be moved if the routes prove ill-chosen. The ground light-rail alternative, which, among other things, requires a tunnel 200 feet under the Capitol Hill district complete with stations with elevators to get to the trains (because light-rail can't climb the grade), would eventually cost many billions of taxpayers' money if implemented, has already run into budget-overruns (while they're still in the study phase), and once it's there, it can't be moved somewhere else. In a couple of initiatives now, the voters have voted for a monorail system. But the Powers That Be are still screwing with ground light-rail. Because it would be far more profitable for the construction companies and their political lap-dogs than the monorail would.

Last I heard, there is an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 homeless in Seattle. They live in their cars, they sleep in shelters when they can, they sleep in parks, they sleep in back alleys, and on a couple of occasions, they have gathered together in what is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of the depression of the Thirties until the authorities came and bulldozed them, forcing those who camped there in relative safety to disperse through the city. Some ingenious ones rent a storage locker for $30 to $50 a month, store their possessions there, and when unguarded, sneak in an sleep there at night (this gives "self-storage" a whole new dimension). Many eat at local churches, many of which sponsor "feeding programs." Most of these people are not indigent. They are the working poor. They earn whatever they can, wherever they can. Flipping burgers. Swabbing toilets. Whatever. Some lost their houses because they lost their jobs and couldn't meet the mortgage; some can no longer afford to rent even a small apartment. Small apartments, even in the cheaper areas, go for $700, $800, or $1,000 a month. Some of them used to work for Boeing, but Boeing is laying a lot of people off and moving much of their manufacturing overseas. More profitable. Some used to work for Microsoft, but Billy is hiring programmers from overseas. Many programmers from India are very good, and they work cheap. Much more profitable.

Well, then, as far as using all that wood we're going to "thin out" of the forests (provided it isn't all shipped to Asia), how about building some low-cost housing for these folks? Over east of Lake Washington, there are many housing projects, but they're anything but "ticky-tacky." Two and three stories, four or five bedrooms, two or three bathrooms, dens, recreation rooms, and three-car garages. They go for $350,000 to $500,000 apiece. Many of them stand idle and unpurchased because there are not that many people around who can afford them. Yet, developers and contractors keep building them because they're potentially far more profitable than smaller, low cost houses closer in (they also build some of these mini-mansions on flood-plains, but that's another story). Older buildings that could easily be converted to low-income housing are being demolished to make room for high-rise condominiums, selling for only a little less than the houses on the east side of the lake. More profitable. Seattle has two shiny new, multi-millio-dollar sports stadiums. The Mariners and Sea Hawks pissed and moaned until the local politicos gouged the taxpayers for the necessary funds to build them. But they can't bring themselves to ante up nickel one to do something for the people who have to sleep in back alleys because they can't afford to sleep anywhere else. But then, the Mariners and the Sea Hawks are highly profitable (incidentally, the Mariners may go on strike because some of the players can't seem to struggle by on their million-dollar salaries).

And don't get me started on things like irradiating food. Irradiation may actually not be harmful, but I'd rather they'd clean up the filth in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. But then, that wouldn't increase the profits. And then, there are the pharmaceutical companies. . . .

When these sorts of things are not just allowed to exist in the richest country in the world, but actively encouraged by the government, it strikes me that something is morally very wrong.

Okay, I'm through. For now.

Don Firth — (Actually, I'm really quite cheerful most of the time.)