It would be tempting to say the problem of unequal wealth distribution is elsewhere - it is with the obscenely rich, the millionaires, the celebrities and footballer’s wives. Or we might want to blame the government. If governments made fairer laws, looked out for the poor, and structures tax better, things would be better.
Neither of these go far enough. To really tackle the gap between rich and poor, we need to look at ourselves and our own spending habits. If my consumer habits are causing oppression in other parts of the world, I have a responsibilty. That’s not to say it’s my fault that coffee farmers aren’t paid, that children are sewing footballs, but I’m not guiltless either. Those of us who live in the West and enjoy the luxuries of the West, are corporately responsible. Yes, the governments are implicated, yes, the millionaires and super-rich have a part to play, but so do you and I.
The problem operates on many levels. There are laws to be written and trade agreements to be negotiated, bad practices to be stamped out. But the problem is also one of day to day choices. It is to do with the adverts we see, the products we buy, the clothes we wear, the way we spend our money in all it’s detail.
Fundamentally, it’s about our attitude. Are we prepared to have less, so that others can have more?
April 18, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I hate to say that I disagree with you immensely. I hate to disagree with you because you acknowledge what I understand to be the prime determinants of sustainability and justice: politics, will, and power! Yet you discredit these factors and point to individual behaviours. You even label ‘attitude’ as being fundamental.
Let me clarify that I am not attacking you. Your comment is very well articulated and you accurately identify the micro-, meso-, and macro-level resolutions to social issues. I argue, however, that more attention should be paid to the ideology and politics that shape health, that distribute illness, that disturb environments, and rattle justice.
The populations of India and China will far surpass any number imaginable hear in the West. But the games of exploitation and decommidification are orchestrated in the West and thus, the problem is not of individual factors given that a small proportion of the global population are pulling the strings. It is a matter of politics and, more importantly, of power.
Visit my blog at http://winstoninwonderland.blogspot.com for like-minded posts. I will be adding linking your blog to mine.
April 18, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Thanks for the link, I’ll take a look. Perhaps I’ve overstated my case. It’s not all about attitude, but it does have a large part to play. Power and politics are hugely important too. The problem in the West is that, whatever the failings of democracy, they are still our governments. If our governments won’t take action, we need to collectively make decisions outside of the normal power structures. But of course we need to carry on with political activism as well, and I don’t want to imply those are insignificant.
Thanks for your comments, and I’ll definitely check out your blog.
May 31, 2007 at 11:37 pm
You know what I am noticing of late geopolitically? The west, at its foundation governed by the tenets of mercy and self-sacrifice, is destroying itself, trying to be an example to the 3rd world.
Yes, we are mostly greedy bastards, but deep down, we care. Hence, those who would manipulate us are able to play to our sympathies and get us to hobble ourselves in the name of the “greater good”. In turn, those we think we are helping are not hindered by such limitations, then turn around and take advantage of our gifts to proceed past us.
It hasn’t happened yet, but the writing is on the wall and the precedents have been set. Ask yourself. After World War II, who lost? Germany and Japan. Whose economies have grown fastest in the years since? Germany and Japan.
Look at what has happened over the last 100 years, population-wise. The West has been convinced that the world is becoming overpopulated. The West has taken all kinds of steps, mostly from a social engineering standpoint, The result is that now, at the dawn of the 21st Century, the West has sub-replacement rates of fertility after convincing people it was “their duty” to stop having babies, to “do their part” to stop overpopulation. We are now turning to the 3rd world to supply their surplus population to fill our need for workers to prop up our vast social welfare programs (started by socialist thought much like what you espouse here). The result of that is Muslim expansion in the West causing unrest and culture clashes as their strict theocratic laws come into conflict with the mores of the democratic state. We are becoming more and more beholden to such countries for their immigrants.
The same thing is happening now with the environmental movement. The Kyoto Accords, ostensibly designed to solve global warming, purport to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Who are the top three greenhouse gas emitters in the world? America, China and India. Who is exempt from the Kyoto Accords? China and India. Who will benefit the most from the Kyoto Accords? Those who are not governed by it. Once again, we (the West) are asked to shoot ourselves in the foot out of guilt for being rich, while China and India benefit from no such restrictions. The only rationale I have heard for this is “we have to set the example”. Well, if I were in charge of China, had 1.5 billion people, and was not being asked to hobble myself for the environment, I would just keep doing what I was doing, knowing that by the time the rest of the world realizes they have crippled themselves, we will be THE power in the world, and nobody will be capable of stopping us.
There is a reason the Bible doesn’t mention America in it: it won’t be around at the end, having long ago eviscerated itself at the behest of “the poor”.
June 1, 2007 at 9:14 am
I understand the dillema - why should we stop if others don’t? Aren’t we just handing them a competitive advantage?
Well, in the short term yes. But to take oil as an example - when the world’s oil supplies run out, which could happen in the next 40 years, who has the advantage then? The people who got the last barrel, or the people who have learned not to need it?
If the world is running at an unsustainable level, we will all face the same consequences sooner or later. Better to be prepared. It’s going to be the same with pollution, with water shortages, soil degradation, species extinction, all these issues will eventually start to impact everyday life, and the countries that have bought in most to the unsustainably lifestyle will have the most to lose.